User talk:JzG/Archive 16

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

User:JzG/talkArchive

Contents

Colonial Mall Decatur[edit]

Umm, can you please explain to me why the Colonial Mall Decatur was deleted. You gave no reason, that I could find. I looked in the pages for deletion and could not find it listed. Please, tell me why you, for some odd reason, deleted this article. AlaGuy 06:40, 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)
Ummmm, I don't believe that the article was a directory or spam. I created the page and I am in no way form or fashion related to the mall. I despise the place. I really don't understand why it was deleted. Now, if someone spammed the site, wouldn't it just make more sense to delete the spam and delete the IP address or user? AlaGuy 19:56, 24 November 2006 (UTC)

Mega Society recreated by sock puppet[edit]

Hi!

I am sorry to bother you with this but a little under an hour ago Mega Society was recreated by a single-purpose account. Also, moments after my speedy tag was removed by Michael Price. Could you salt and block please? Also should I request CheckUser on Michael Price given his mysterious appearence moments after a single purpose account recreated the article?

Cheers, MartinDK 18:43, 23 November 2006 (UTC)

Hardly mysterious: it's on my watchlist. Do do a UserCheck. --Michael C. Price talk 18:46, 23 November 2006 (UTC)
I have lots of deleted articles on my watchlist, too. Guy (Help!) 18:49, 23 November 2006 (UTC)
Avi, could you, as an admin, restore the Mega Society and its talk page, with histories? User:JzG admits he raised the 2nd AfD in error[16] but refuses to restore the article in despite of a number of complaints on his talk page, from various users, about his violation of procedure. Or should I go to arbitration? --Michael C. Price talk 16:01, 23 November 2006 (UTC)
Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Avraham"
cannot restore it directly per wiki policy. I suggest first WP:DRV and perhaps mention on WP:AN/I. -- Avi 17:54, 23 November 2006 (UTC)
Thanks. If the problem continues I might take it to WP:AN/I, although it has just become moot since someone else has just re-created it. Well, sort of... --Michael C. Price talk 18:22, 23 November 2006 (UTC)
Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:MichaelCPrice"
Thanks for solving the problem. The above conversation in mind I'll assume good faith and just let it be. That's why I thought it would be a good idea to ask you first since I'm still kind of new here when it comes to these things. Still sounds like an odd sequence of events to me but it doesn't matter anymore. MartinDK 19:10, 23 November 2006 (UTC)

Does this page need protection as well? --DaturaS 15:55, 25 November 2006 (UTC)

Cynwyd Elementary School[edit]

Regardless of the result of the earlier AfD, and regardless of when it occured, articles can and are recreated after "failing" an AfD. In many cases, the explicit purpose of a redirect is to allow the article to be recreated once additional information is available to establish notability. If you compare the article as it exists now after undoing your revert to the one that existed at the time of the AfD, you will see that the article has been expanded, is fully sourced, and makes explicit claims of notability. Pursuing a WP:DRV is not an option, as I have no issue whatsoever with the decision based on the state of the article at the point the the AfD was created and the decision made to "Speedy Delete" was not unjustified at the time. If you feel that the article in its current state does not merit inclusion in Wikipedia, the next step would be to create another AfD. Alansohn 14:59, 24 November 2006 (UTC)

Call me jaded, but seeing it back in all it's "glory" so soon after the AfD looks awfully like "I don't like that result, I think I'll just ignore it". The next step surely should be DRV, rather than simply ignoring the (very recent) AfD. Guy (Help!) 15:01, 24 November 2006 (UTC)
I will call you jaded. Please share with me a specification of how long one must wait to recreate an article and I will wait the requisite amount of time. Now that it exists, it either meets criteria for retention or it does not. Pursuing a WP:DRV can only challenge the legitimacy of the original AfD, which I do not question. In the rush to close this, there was no time to enhance the article to meet the issues that had been raised. They have been addressed, necessarily post facto, and stand to serve the community for this article. Alansohn 21:21, 24 November 2006 (UTC)
Longer than you did, anyway. If you'd taken the new information to DRV I'm confident the result would have been no problem, and I am certainly no process wonk, policy is all, but I think you'd have to agree it doesn't look good, does it? It's not like there is any kind of widespread consensus to keep schools at this level, there are simply too many of them. Guy (Help!) 22:33, 24 November 2006 (UTC)
I have often advocated that the Baseball Hall of Fame should limit itself to say a net of one new member per year. You'd be able to add more than one in a given year, but you'd have to knock out some existing members to fit in the new ones. We don't have that issue on Wikipedia. If an article meets retention criteria, it should be kept, regardless of how many we have just like it. I agree that all schools are not notable and that many elementary school articles should be deleted. The fact that there is widespread consensus hasn't help prevent AfDs for high school articles, and the fact that there is an opposite consensus on many elementary schools doesn't mean that all should be deleted. It doesn't look good? It looks like someone took the time to improve the article, and it either stands on its own as it exists or it doesn't. Alansohn 00:22, 26 November 2006 (UTC)


Paradise Valley Mall on deletion review[edit]

An editor has asked for a deletion review of Paradise Valley Mall. Since you closed the deletion discussion for (or speedy-deleted) this article, your reasons on how or why you did so will be greatly appreciated in the above review.

(Apologies for placing this in the wrong area at first)

I have been editing pages on shopping centers in the Phoenix, AZ area, where I live, and the San Francisco Bay Area, where I grew up.

Today I found that the page "Metrocenter Mall" was deleted by you citing (WP:CSD G11, spam,) as a reason. I would beg to disagree with your conclusion as 1) Metrocenter is a major shopping center in Phoenix, one of the USA's major cities and 2) using such criteria would arguably disqualify several dozen articles on shopping malls, including all the other ones in the Phoenix area (see List of shopping malls in the United States). Shopping centers are a topic of great social, cultural and economic significance in the USA and worldwide and deserve coverage on Wikipedia. Articles on them should not be deleted. Please strongly consider reposting the article, and/or I will begin a replacement article within 48 hours. I have posted a complaint on Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents.--Msr69er 18:20, 24 November 2006 (UTC)

See several sections above. I deleted a very large number of articles many of which were part of an evident spamming campaign and all of which seemed to me to be directory entries, one of the things that Wikipedia is not. Guy (Help!) 22:13, 24 November 2006 (UTC)
I am making a similar assertion that the article Paradise Valley Mall needs to be reinstated on the same grounds. I disagree that any of the articles on the Phoenix Westcor malls qualify as spam. I made substantial edits to the article Paradise Valley Mall which make it much more encyclopedic in tone than the original.--Msr69er 00:32, 25 November 2006 (UTC)
Wikipedia is still not a directory. Guy (Help!) 00:34, 25 November 2006 (UTC)
After reading the guideline on directory entries, I would assert that the entire classification of shopping centers, if this guideline were to be strictly applied across the board, may indeed be considered inappropriate for Wikipedia. I am a relatively new Wikipedian so I'm still learning the rules. There should be a long and hard debate on this as it would theoretically mean the deletion of dozens upon dozens of well written individual articles on individual shopping centers, many of which denote places of strong and significant cultural, social and economic interest (along with major skyscrapers, sports stadiums, universities, government buildings such as the U.S. Capitol, etc.,) - and for such reason I would always argue for inclusion. Again I assert that the shopping center category is completely appropriate for coverage on Wikipedia, but if it is not, what would make that category appropriate at all? Let's have a debate among Wikipedians on it. Where do I start?--Msr69er 01:20, 25 November 2006 (UTC)
JzG, you say on the deletion review page that "the primary notability criterion (for appropriateness as an encyclopedia article)...is having been the subject of multiple non-trivial coverage in reliable secondary sources independent of the subject". The Arizona malls have been extensively coverered for decades in local media (newspapers and locally produced magazines), and are considered a vital part of the regional economy. Would the remedy for reinstatement simply be the inclusion of more footnotes?--Msr69er 01:36, 25 November 2006 (UTC)
Most of it is trivial. How many books are there on any of these malls? Guy (Help!) 10:02, 25 November 2006 (UTC)
Not many scholarly books exist on individual malls (that I am aware of), but rather on the mall phenomenon as a whole. "Reliable secondary sources" would need to lean heavily on the local newspapers. It sounds, from your assertions and policy citiations, as though Wikipedia is moving towards eliminating ALL individual articles on shopping centers as they do not fit notability requirements as stated. I would still disagree on the grounds I argued, but if those are the rules, then certainly I must abide by them, but if you speedy delete the articles I have questioned, you must do the same to about 75% of the rest in the interest of fairness. If that is the case there could be hundreds of articles so targeted, and you have quite a workload ahead. Is there a place where such announcements are made to all editors? Can editors have the option to relocate such articles to other wikis or other resources on the Internet that may be a more appropriate home?--Msr69er 11:47, 25 November 2006 (UTC)
Thig is, if the mall phenomenon is notable (which it is), then we have an article on shopping mall. The fact of the concept being notable does not confer notability on all or specific examples of that phenomenon. I have no problem at all with userfying for transwiki, my main concern here was what I can only see as a spamming campaign (and no, you are not a spammer). A newspaper story on the opening of a mall is pretty small beer - local newspapers will carry articles on the opening of an envelope if it's a slow news day. As to the rules, it's only my interpretation of the rules, and then only in this specific instance. So do please open a wider discussion at the Village Pump or somewhere, it would be good to have a bit of clarity. Please, though, let's have an end to the mall directory entries. An article on a generic mall which states its opening date and location and lists the anchor stores really is not an encyclopaedia article, to my understanding. I have no problem with articles on genuinely notable malls. Ones which break new ground (in the objectively verifiable sense, not the marketing bullshit sense, of course), ones which have changed the landscape by turning a poor town into a prosperous one, that kind of thing. Anything, really, as long as it's a substantive and verifiable claim to notability beyond mere existence. Guy (Help!) 16:41, 25 November 2006 (UTC)

Images, malls[edit]

Image:Gurnee Mills wide.jpg and Image:Gurnee Mills.jpg were speedy deleted... was there a licensing issue on these? I can provide the original 6MP files with timestamps that match the original upload times, and other information that shows they came from my camera. Also, both were deleted with the comment that they were orphaned, though both are still in use, the first by Mills Corporation, the second by Gurnee, Illinois. Since they're in use, and don't fall under CSD-I3, I've restored them.

As an aside, it was clear that Dvac (talk · contribs) was some sort of spammer. Gurnee Mills could have been much better sourced, so I won't protest its deletion much. Though I would like to note that the article existed long before Dvac came around, and Dvac's edits were frequently reverted, and it was frustrating to try to communicate with them about unencyclopedic content, and it's unfortunate that the frustrating collaboration was repaid by having the article deleted just because they touched it at some point. (though, as I said, if a stub is eventually created again, it needs to be much better sourced, so I won't protest). --Interiot 16:27, 25 November 2006 (UTC)

If a sourced article on the mall which demonstrates notability can be written, then I will undelete the images. I usually remove images on deleted articles that do not link elsewhere, just to keep the place tidy. Maybe that's wrong. Or maybe they did link elsewhere and I missed it. Guy (Help!) 16:34, 25 November 2006 (UTC)
I dropped the note mainly to mention that I've undeleted them already, because they are (and were at the time of deletion) in use by other pages. --Interiot 16:44, 25 November 2006 (UTC)
OK, thanks (I saw you undeleted these; there were others, hence the comment about undeleting). Sorry about that, the image link thing is not 100% reliable and neither am I - in the end it was probably my fault. Guy (Help!) 17:34, 25 November 2006 (UTC)

Slightly related to this:

Metrocenter Mall on deletion review[edit]

An editor has asked for a deletion review of Metrocenter Mall. Since you closed the deletion discussion for (or speedy-deleted) this article, your reasons on how or why you did so will be greatly appreciated in the above review. Titoxd(?!?) 19:37, 25 November 2006 (UTC)

Arbcomm[edit]

Just noticed that you were running. I'm really glad to hear that. Guettarda 19:40, 25 November 2006 (UTC)

oh my, and I am getting enough flak for the bumper stickers I already have. KillerChihuahua?!? 02:22, 26 November 2006 (UTC)

Greetings![edit]

Greetings, oh puppetmaster! [1]. Do you suppose that ripping sound could be the guy from AMA tearing his hair out? Bishonen | talk 21:26, 25 November 2006 (UTC).

Yes, I left a note on the AMA request - I think the poor advocate is going to have his work cut out with this one! Dear oh dear. That's two of my most disputations former sparring partners active at once, as well. What joy. Guy (Help!) 22:38, 25 November 2006 (UTC)

Fys's block[edit]

Guy,

I'll leave what to do about Fys's block up to you. IMHO, it was a reasonable block, because Fys was over 3RR and because Detoxification's specific edits at issue don't look like vandalism. On the other hand,

  • Last week, Detox specifically threatened to go on a vandalism campaign on the Tim Ireland page;[2] and
  • Fys has promised no more reversions pending mediation.[3]

Like I said, I think it was a good block, but there were some extenuating circumstances and Fys has now promised to behave, so I'll leave the decision up to you. Thanks, TheronJ 17:33, 1 December 2006 (UTC)

He has behaved like a complete arse, and I think the reason for that is probably that he is a complete arse. I fart in his general direction. Guy (Help!) 19:11, 1 December 2006 (UTC)
For future reference: I take the view that it is not for me, if blocked, to offer pledges as to good behaviour; however, if others suggest a pledge which would lead them to unblock, then I will definitely consider it. Fys. “Ta fys aym”. 19:13, 1 December 2006 (UTC)
Fys, the whole reason you got into this mess is that you didn't make any effort to work constructively with Guy or Viridae (or, for that matter, with Detox - if you had made the effort, you wouldn't have gotten blocked). IMHO, you have every effort to work constructively with the other editors, and I hope you do. As for my obligation, I stepped in because Guy asked for a second look, but you've been so prickly that it makes it hard for me to be proud of my involvement. Like I said, please consider a little more sugar and a little less vinegar in the future. (And no, Guy's statements to you aren't comparable - you've earned them in a way that Guy and Viridae never earned your vitriol, and your underlying actions were an edit war and 3rr violation, while Guy's are a good faith request for an outside opinion and a decision to unblock. Go and sin no more, and we'll all laugh at these times in a year or so). TheronJ 19:32, 1 December 2006 (UTC)
I've no complaints as to your behaviour, TheronJ. Nor have I complained when JzG had a good go at me (par for the course, really). My complaint is that he blocked first and then asked for discussion. Blocking prevents a user from going to the talk page. Instead, he first came to my talk page at 10:58 purporting to request talk page activity, and blocked at 11:05. In between that time I had not edited the article, nor WP:AIV nor anything other than talk pages. It was a bad call to block. Fys. “Ta fys aym”. 19:47, 1 December 2006 (UTC)
It's like this: blocks are preventive. If a user gives an unequivocal undertaking not to repat the problem behaviour, a block is no longer necessary. If they refuse to do so, it clearly is necessary. This seems to me to be a pretty straightforward interpretation of blocking policy. Sometimes people abuse my good faith and go on to continue their disruption; I generally do not give them a second chance. I do not think I am particularly block-happy, but I do not respond well to aggression from tendentious editors, and there is no possible doubt that you are a tendentious editor. As TheronJ says, if you go away and stop being a dick, there will be no further problems. 80.176.82.42 21:27, 1 December 2006 (UTC)
It is for the blocking admin to request a pledge of good behaviour, not for the blocked editor to volunteer such a pledge. And your repeated insistence that I am tendentious (which I interpret here as a claim that the reason I want the Tim Ireland weblog included is that it is critical of Anne Milton, to whom I am politically opposed) is absolutely wrong. If you really want to know, I belong to the shade of opinion within the Labour Party who regard Liberal Democrats as far worse than Tories, and I disapprove both of Tim Ireland's politics and some of his methods of campaigning. I should have reacted exactly the same if it had been a Labour MP. Fys. “Ta fys aym”. 11:10, 2 December 2006 (UTC)
You are beating the bloody smear where the dead horse once lay; your block log and ArbCom sanctions speak for themselves.
I am also at liberty to lift blocks if the blocked user undertakes not to repeat the problematic behaviour, and I see absolutely no inconsistency between this position and blocking policy, which states that blocks are preventive not for punishment. You can pretend to yourself that you are right, if it helps you sleep at night, but since every other admin who looked at the situation appears to agree with me I would suggest that you are in a minority of approximately one. I don't think I have any more to say to you at this point. Guy (Help!) 13:55, 2 December 2006 (UTC)

I am not having you make unwarranted assumptions about my politics. You really know nothing whatsoever about my politics and have jumped to entirely incorrect assumptions. It would, however, explain a lot if that is what led to your incorrect decision to block. I will tell you again, and you will listen, that the reason I think Tim Ireland's weblog deserves mention in Anne Milton has nothing whatsoever to do with my agreeing with its criticisms. Shocking that you should make such an unwarranted assumption. Even more shocking that you should stick to it after you have been corrected. Fys. “Ta fys aym”. 21:04, 2 December 2006 (UTC)

  • I wouldn't dream of making unwarranted assumptions. Very few people edit war over content they do not care about. The bloody smear is now down to a vague shadow on the pavement, it is really time you stopped beating it. Guy (Help!) 11:02, 3 December 2006 (UTC)
    • One may care about content because of its merit as content rather than agreeing with its substance, and that is the case here. You're "bloody smear"ing me. If your assumption is merely that as a Labour Party supporter I must agree with and support every attack on a politician of any other party, then you are being not only insulting but extremely naive about politics. Do you want me to point you to the articles I've written about political figures from other parties and which are perfectly neutral? [You're also violating WP:AGF (not merely that, since my good faith is real and not an assumption), and also the Jimbo observation that as Wikipedians we leave our own opinions behind and write neutrally. You have absolutely no evidence for your stance. The equivalent stance on my part would be to accuse you of a political bias against me because you dislike the Labour Party. That might possibly be true, but I have no evidence for it (even if I happened to know how you vote) and so I do not dream of suggesting it. Really, your behaviour has been infantile in the extreme. I will not give this up until you apologise for imputing motives as you are. Apologise and withdraw. Fys. “Ta fys aym”. 15:37, 3 December 2006 (UTC)
PS: Nowhere in the Arbitration case was it stated that I had edited in a POV way. The NPOV principle isn't included in the finding, which indicates that the arbitrators didn't consider it relevant to the case. Hope this "killer fact" helps. If you're so unwise as to continue in your opinion then be warned, there may be more that I know which you don't. Fys. “Ta fys aym”. 15:45, 3 December 2006 (UTC)
There is now barely a shadow where the bloody smear of the dead horse once was. Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Irishpunktom#Fys edit wars, quite right, the fact that your edits were also POV is an unnecessary corollary, the fact of bipartisan edit warring is sufficient. Guy (Help!) 17:33, 3 December 2006 (UTC)
Admission of defeat: you have no case. There is no justification for the stance you have adopted and you know it. Fys. “Ta fys aym”. 17:51, 3 December 2006 (UTC)

Admission of defeat[edit]

If this isn't an admission of defeat then I don't know what is. I suppose you think I was deliberately lying when I made this edit back in June. Fys. “Ta fys aym”. 19:02, 3 December 2006 (UTC)

Personal attack[edit]

Reference your recent edit summary: Please see Wikipedia's no personal attacks policy. Comment on content, not on contributors; personal attacks damage the community and deter users. Note that continued personal attacks may lead to blocks for disruption. Please stay cool and keep this in mind while editing. Thank you. Fys. “Ta fys aym”. 19:20, 3 December 2006 (UTC)

Thanks[edit]

Just a note to say thanks for your understanding, assistance and guidance. It is much appreciated.Dgray xplane 02:40, 26 November 2006 (UTC)

You had just better repay this by becoming as good an editor as Stephen :-) Guy (Help!) 21:34, 26 November 2006 (UTC)

GetWiki[edit]

Hello. First of all, I apologise for my earlier behaviour. I notice that why the issue is still subjudice at deletion review, User:Robert Buzink has created a "new" GetWiki article. I want to emphasize that there was no collusion whatsoever between Robert Buzink and me - I'm just letting you know what I noticed. David Cannon 10:54, 26 November 2006 (UTC)

Sure, it's not a problem, anyone can get carried away :-) Guy (Help!) 20:19, 26 November 2006 (UTC)

Willowbrook Mall (Houston, Texas)[edit]

You deleted Willowbrook Mall at 00:03 on November 24, citing CSD G11 spam. I disagree. The article was informative. Please restore and nominate it for deletion so it can go through a discussion. Thanks. Clipper471 15:35, 26 November 2006 (UTC)

The Yellow Pages is also informative. See above. Guy (Help!) 20:18, 26 November 2006 (UTC)

Can you not restore and nominate it for deletion so it can go through a discussion? It seems that because of one editor's spamming, all these articles were deleted. I personally saw the spam in some and reverted his edits because of it. Seems a little harsh to punish the entire class because of one rotten student. Clipper471 21:10, 26 November 2006 (UTC)

I have nothing against a deletion review, but I don't believe any of the articles I deleted was more than a directory entry, and Wikipedia is not a directory. Guy (Help!) 21:33, 26 November 2006 (UTC)

Willowbrook Mall (Houston, Texas) on deletion review[edit]

An editor has asked for a deletion review of Willowbrook Mall (Houston, Texas). Since you closed the deletion discussion for (or speedy-deleted) this article, your reasons on how or why you did so will be greatly appreciated in the above review. Clipper471 21:36, 26 November 2006 (UTC).

The Shops at La Cantera[edit]

You deleted The Shops at La Cantera at 00:01 on November 24, citing CSD G11 spam. Please restore and nominate it with Afd so it can go through a discussion. Thanks. Clipper471 15:54, 26 November 2006 (UTC)

One of many, see above. Guy (Help!) 20:18, 26 November 2006 (UTC)


ArbCom questions[edit]

Hi. I'm Ral315, editor of the Wikipedia Signpost. We're doing a series on ArbCom candidates, and your response is requested.

  1. What positions do you hold (adminship, mediation, etc.)?
  2. Why are you running for the Arbitration Committee?
  3. Have you been involved in any arbitration cases? In what capacity?

Please respond on my talk page. We'll probably go to press late Monday or early Tuesday (UTC), but late responses will be added as they're submitted. Thanks, Ral315 (talk) 01:59, 27 November 2006 (UTC)

CSD abuse at Willowbrook Mall (Wayne, New Jersey)[edit]

I am extremely concerned about your rampage of deletion of perfectly legitimate articles regarding malls via the WP:CSD process, which is intended to deal with non-contentious deletes and has been abused at Willowbrook Mall (Wayne, New Jersey) and elsewhere. As demonstrated at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Centre 2000, there is widespread and overwhelming support for such articles, despite your personal, arbitrary and irrational distaste for such articles. If you feel a particular article should be deleted, please take the decent and intellectually honest approach, place a notability tag, ask for expansion and use the AfD process, rather than abusing CSD to delete perfectly valid articles or articles that could easily be improved to meet your arbitrary standards. As stated at WP:CSD, "The "Speedy deletion" policy governs limited cases where Wikipedia administrators may delete Wikipedia pages or media "on sight" without further debate, as in the cases of patent nonsense or pure vandalism.... Before nominating an article for speedy deletion, please consider whether an article could be improved..." As none of the criteria for speedy deletion have been met in this case, your decision to take it upon yourself to delete the article is a blatant abuse of your authority as an administrator and the CSD process to pursue your own personal biases. Your claims that these articles are directory entries are patently false and deliberately misinterpret WP:NOT. Alansohn 04:21, 27 November 2006 (UTC)

Rampage? Perfectly legitimate? Perhaps a little good faith might be an idea here. I found a user who had created and editd a large number of articles on malls all owned and operated by a single company. WP:NOT a directory or storefront. I left a note on the admin noticeboard about it as well. And it was one session, none since. Guy (Help!) 13:05, 27 November 2006 (UTC)


Vista Ridge Mall on deletion review[edit]

An editor has asked for a deletion review of Vista Ridge Mall. Since you closed the deletion discussion for (or speedy-deleted) this article, your reasons on how or why you did so will be greatly appreciated in the above review.

Page on an Arizona shopping mall deleted without warning[edit]

Metrocenter Mall on deletion review[edit]

An editor has asked for a deletion review of Metrocenter Mall. Since you closed the deletion discussion for (or speedy-deleted) this article, your reasons on how or why you did so will be greatly appreciated in the above review.

The Mall at Steamtown[edit]

On November 23, you deleted the page for The Mall at Steamtown. As it appeared initially, it was definitely sounded like an advertisement, but I performed extensive rewrites to bring it back to NPOV, and I believe that I did so successfully. I respectfully disagree that it qualified under G11.Brad E. Williams 21:08, 27 November 2006 (UTC)

I've just found the deletion review, so I'll add a note there to see if it can be reinstated. Brad E. Williams 21:22, 27 November 2006 (UTC)

User talk:Together 4 ever[edit]

They're at it again. Fan-1967 15:53, 27 November 2006 (UTC)

Chatting[edit]

Looks like we've got a group of 10-12 year-old girls using their talk pages as a chat site. Baby-girl015 (talk · contribs), Beccaboo 06 (talk · contribs), Natigurl 06 (talk · contribs), Cutie Pie06 (talk · contribs). Any ideas? Fan-1967 19:53, 27 November 2006 (UTC)

What you did seems about right to me. See if they continue. Guy (Help!) 23:17, 27 November 2006 (UTC)
Getting worse. They're leaving invitations to chat not only on other User Talk pages, but article Talk pages, Fan-1967 17:49, 28 November 2006 (UTC)

One of them appears to have created the following:

  1. Babyphat (talk · contribs)
  2. Big daddy thick (talk · contribs)
  3. Sexy 06 (talk · contribs)
  4. Big gay bubba (talk · contribs)
  5. ! JAY ! (talk · contribs)
  6. Pretty Ricky1820 (talk · contribs)
  7. Sexy Virgo Baby (talk · contribs)
  8. Sexy Jamacian (talk · contribs)
  9. BabyBlueStar (talk · contribs)
  10. Sexy Chocolate 09 (talk · contribs)
  11. Sexy Scorpio10 (talk · contribs)

Taking to ANI. Guy (Help!) 19:04, 28 November 2006 (UTC)

Please help[edit]

This is with regard to the Notable attacks by LTTE deletion review. Proto is saying that everything I am saying is not true. I dont have an admins rights so I cannot even retrieve the pages to make a statistical analysis. If you could please go through pages and offer an opinion.Dutugemunu 13:53, 28 November 2006 (UTC)

Thanks Guy, also is the AFD itself accessible to normal users. I tried searching but couldnt find it 220.236.183.59 14:13, 28 November 2006 (UTC)

Notable attacks attributed to the LTTE[edit]

Hi. For your information, and further to the DRV discussion, I've restored Notable attacks attributed to the LTTE. Proto::type 14:23, 28 November 2006 (UTC)

Fairy nuff. I have no opinion, really, I was just being helpful :-) Guy (Help!) 19:16, 28 November 2006 (UTC)

Just zis Thanks, yano?[edit]

I wasn't going to send thank-you cards, but the emotional impact of hitting WP:100 (and doing so unanimously!) changed my mind. So I appreciate your confidence in me at RFA (and clichéd confusion), and hope you'll let me know if I can do anything for you in the future. Cheers! -- nae'blis 23:34, 28 November 2006 (UTC)

Personal Rapid Transit - link deletion[edit]

Hello,

I added a link to my PPT project (www.pptproject.com) on this page:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Personal_rapid_transit

But you deleted it. May I ask why? This is a sincere effort on my part at contributing to a solution. I don't have any ads of any kind. To the contrary, I've contributed a great deal of my time to this project, not to mention the hosting and domain name fees. I would be very appreciative if you could restore the link, or at least let me know why you don't feel it's appropriate.

Gary Stark gary@pptproject.com

  • See WP:EL, links to avoid. The word "my" says it all here. Guy (Help!) 09:46, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

Guy, I'm fine with leaving out the work "my". Is that sufficient to restore the link? If you take a look at the actual website (www.pptproject.com), you will see that it's a completely serious proposal and NOT about self promotion.

gary

See WP:EL, links to avoid - links to sites you own or control. Also links to commercial sites. Also promotional links. This is simply not appropriate, sorry. Guy (Help!) 13:58, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

Guy, I added the link under "External Links", "Proposals". And if you took a look at my site, you must realize that it's not at all about Spam as you suggested when you deleted it. So what possibly reason is there not to include it? And I'm not asking you to site some arbitrary rules somewhere. I'm asking for your personal opinion. All of the other links in this section point to personal or commercial sites. I don't see the difference. Finally, if you still think it doesn't belong in this section, where do you think it belongs? -- gary

It's a link to your site, and it has not been identified as a significant proposal by any external authority that I can see. Guy (Help!) 16:37, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

So what you're saying is that:

1) since no "external authority" has blessed the concept, you are censoring it? So there's no room on Wikipedia for personal innovation? How do you think new ideas come into being in the first place?

2) Yes, it's 'my' site. So if someone else were to add the link, it's OK?

I think if you look closer at the "approved" links, they are not that much different. And the very fact that your initial deletion was based on your labeling of my site as "spam" is not being addressed in this discussion. Or do you still see my site as spam? Guy, I feel that this is really unfair and would ask that you please reconsider.

gary

The fact that It's yours means that you should not be lobbying for its inclusion in the first place. The fact that it has no obvious authority and no obvious support from any authority means that, per WP:EL, it should not be included anyway. Allegations of censorship are entirely inappropriate. Note that external links are there to provide reliabel sources for the content of the article and to include a level of detail which would be considered excessive within the article itself - they are not there to promote or endorse a site or concept. Spam has a particular meaning on Wikipedia, discussed at WP:SPAM: links included to publicise the site or its contents are considered spam. Guy (Help!) 18:40, 29 November 2006 (UTC)


So the difference between my proposal and the approved proposals is that they are recognized by some third party "authority", but mine isn't. Can you be more specific? Who is this entity or group? How does a new concept get the blessing of this authority?

Yes, I agree that I'm the one who added the link and I am the creator of the website. So if I can find anyone else willing to post the link besides myself, is this then allowed? Or do you also have an approved list of posters? Or is there some sort of "lobbying" process as you referred to it?

The bottom line is that I see no way for new concepts to be recognized by Wikipedia as you have outlined the process. Sort of a "good old boys" club. Presumably you have a personal interest in PRT concepts. Mine is unique in that it doesn't build an alternate road system, but instead recycles our existing road infrastructure. So if anything I believe the concept deserves discussion for it's unique approach. So maybe I should instead be inserting this aspect of the concept into the main body of the article...?

gary

You added links to your own site promoting your own idea, there is no evidence that your idea is considered notable by independent authorities. The way to get it included is to suggest it on Talk with evidence of support from independent authorities. Arguing here is not going to achieve anything beyond pissing me off. Guy (Help!) 20:58, 29 November 2006 (UTC)


Guy, I took your advise and posted my objection on the talk page: [[4]]

gary

Link to list(s) of HL mods afd discussion[edit]

The link to the AfD is wrong, see my comment at Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2006 November 29#Lists of Half-Life mods. --Pizzahut2 22:11, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

{{sofixit}}. You posted a double redlink, so I fixed that. Guy (Help!) 22:19, 29 November 2006 (UTC)
I'm not the one who opened the deletion review. --Pizzahut2 22:32, 29 November 2006 (UTC)
Whatever. You could still have fixed it. Guy (Help!) 23:23, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

Perimeter Mall on deletion review[edit]

An editor has asked for a deletion review of Perimeter Mall. Since you closed the deletion discussion for (or speedy-deleted) this article, your reasons on how or why you did so will be greatly appreciated in the above review. --GGreeneVa 00:12, 30 November 2006 (UTC)

Regarding Gregor Samsa (band)[edit]

This:

"Despite the name they will never metamorphose into the Beetles... Guy (Help!) 14:03, 25 November 2006 (UTC)"

is the GREATEST. COMMENT. EVER. :) Thanks for the laugh out loud moment, Xoloz 16:11, 30 November 2006 (UTC)

lolling here as well. Syrthiss 16:15, 30 November 2006 (UTC)

Money in Harry Potter[edit]

Someone reverted your edit as an IP. I've reverted it back. Will (Tell me, is something eluding you, Sunshine?) 16:38, 30 November 2006 (UTC)

Thanks. Guy (Help!) 16:52, 30 November 2006 (UTC)

Hi guy! I hats off to do this.[edit]

Hi Guy! I hope all is well long time no chat. I typically have been doing some projects at university and stuff. I was wondering if you can give me a quick comment on cplot case I'm working on? I left a question for Fred Bauyer[5] but I haven't received quite an answer I understand. I am being extra vigilant in this case because of the it has come upon me. I was request to be an advocate. After analysing the communications from MONGO and Cplot I placed my observations on mongo's talk page. I personally believe, after studying the previous communications with user:MONGO and asking him some questions, that it was done in a spitfull escalation of rage... with a reactionary level of a cheata and hardly no warning if any. Anyway, I was wondering if you've ever heard anything about arbcom giving permission to remove specific url links because they consider it to be vandalism. [6]. Anyway... I think its going to arbitration and I have never done this before. Eik! --CyclePat 20:58, 30 November 2006 (UTC)

Hello, Pat! Long time no see.
The sites linked are on the Wikimedia blacklist, for a start, and are also all unlinked because they contain attempts to "out" the real identities of editors who choose not to have their identities revealed, and also attack Wikipedia editors and admins by name. Wikitruth, Wikipedia Review, Wikipedia Watch, Encyclopaedia Dramatica and several other sites are banned as attack sites or sites containing attacks.
This was clarified in the findings of Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/MONGO, as well as other places. Fred's edit history shows him unlinking the ED site, after that case.
Any editor linking these sites, and especially linking to pages wihtin these sites which attack other Wikipedians by name, is more than likely to be indefinitely blocked. This is a sensitive issue at present. The very best thing you can do as an advocate in any case involving atemopts to link these sites is to strongly advise the user not to do it. Not to even think about doing it. Tolerance is less than zero.
Cplot is, I think, probably beyond salvation. His edit history contains gross incivility, attacks, apparent legal threats and trolling; his mainspace edits, such as they are, are marked by profound bias, original research, disruption and not much of any merit I can see. He has also used sockpuppets to evade blocks. If taken to ArbCom I owuld anticipate a speedy endorsement of his indefinite block.
Does this answer your questions? Guy (Help!) 23:01, 30 November 2006 (UTC)
Thank you Guy! Yup! It's pretty clear. Well actually the entire situation isn't pretty clear for me because I've got to remain creative in advocating the defensive rights of cplot. But your explanation is helpfull, specially when you've got quite a few contradictory ideas. I think I, may need to start an arbcom. It just feels like everyone is picking on cplot. Seriously, we've had more stressful times arguing about article content. In this case it felt, (though I'm from the outside), like one strike... you're out! hum... anyway! I'm still got a couple idea in my mind which I'm going to have to think about. (Encyclopedia Dramatica can't be linked too... urls even to the main page can be removed from anywhere... humm.... what about if there was an article on that... anyway indeed contreversial and I really think we have some work to do if that's the case. Update WP:VAND, (because that would be considered vandlism)... OH boy! Is anyone planing to appeal the arbcom decision? It seems to directly contradict wikirules for WP:VAND) Anyway... wishing you a Merry Christmas Early! Best wishes and thank you again for the help. --CyclePat 06:19, 4 December 2006 (UTC)
It's more about disruption than vandalism, I think, and also harassment. There is no article on ED and there is unlikely to be one any time soon, we had a long and bitter debate about that and that was part of the problem for MONGO, the drama queens were not happy about it. Guy (Help!) 07:42, 4 December 2006 (UTC)

Deletion[edit]

I am generally for including and keeping most everything including the historical disputes between editors. But this deletions was perfectly on the mark. Just stopped by to say Kudos for such a clear eyesight on the most essential part of that mess. --Irpen 09:39, 1 December 2006 (UTC)

Thanks. I don't see the need to feed the troll in this case, he should take it to WP:DR if he's really that intent (but will almost certainly be wasting his time). Guy (Help!) 09:55, 1 December 2006 (UTC)

Roland Piquepaille[edit]

I left a comment on the talk page asking that it be unWP:SALTed, but was told to take this to deletion review. Since you were the protecting admin, I figured it'd be quicker to ask you to unprotect it and take off the notice directly before I take it there. There's no reason to protect it as deleted, all the vandalism was over almost a year and a half ago. Night Gyr (talk/Oy) 10:21, 1 December 2006 (UTC)

No objection in principle, but do you have proposed content to drop in? Or some other reason? It was a redirect to Slashdot for a while, but that was deleted by request. The deletion log looks like this:
  • 22:55, September 30, 2006 JzG (Talk | contribs | block) deleted "Roland Piquepaille" (empty)
  • 07:48, July 5, 2005 Moncrief (Talk | contribs | block) deleted "Roland Piquepaille" (content was: '{{db|vanity nonsense}}Roland Piquepaille is a fellow who makes a lot of money on ads by getting his crappy stories linked constantly on Slashdot.')
  • 16:24, February 11, 2005 Fredrik (Talk | contribs | block) deleted "Roland Piquepaille" (rant about censoring)
  • 15:28, February 11, 2005 Jni (Talk | contribs | block) deleted "Roland Piquepaille" (content was: 'this article got deleted')
  • 20:33, February 10, 2005 Christopher Mahan (Talk | contribs | block) deleted "Roland Piquepaille" (Copy and paste job from a slashdot rant.)
  • 06:13, January 21, 2005 SimonP (Talk | contribs | block) deleted "Roland Piquepaille" (listed on VfD, votes 5-1 in favour of deletion)
That's a lot of trolling and the history shows some pretty blatant WP:LIVING violations, albeit some time back. DRV would not be necessary, IMO, if we had an unambiguously good article to put in place, but thus far I don't see one and if we don't have a good article to put in place I think salting may still be appropriate due to past abuse. Yes, I know I'm being overcautious :-) If you have some decent content to go in I have no problem at all with removing the salt. Guy (Help!) 10:49, 1 December 2006 (UTC)
His name gets 375,000 google hits (vs. <1,000 when it got killed on VFD), so I'm sure we can get something on him. I don't have an article to drop in immediately, but it seems much more likely that it'll get a good article rather than vandalism if unprotected to allow it. Night Gyr (talk/Oy) 11:07, 1 December 2006 (UTC)
That sounds plausible. I have removed the salt, please create at least a valid stub. Guy (Help!) 12:09, 1 December 2006 (UTC)

WP:AIV[edit]

I'm glad you came ot the same conclusion as me about that vandalism report. You beat me to the removal (for the second time). ViridaeTalk 10:58, 1 December 2006 (UTC)

Yes, low-level edit war and likely WP:BLP violation (to say nothing of WP:POINT). The wikilawyering does not help any, either. Guy (Help!) 12:10, 1 December 2006 (UTC)


Jimbo Has Spoken? (Re: GNAA DRV)[edit]

There are 2 issues here and people seem to be confusing them and assuming there is only one (note that Jimbo's email didn't even cover one of the issues). The 2 issues are: whether or not AFD policy should be followed, whether or not the article should be deleted. I'm pretty sure if another AFD occurs or the current one continues that GNAA will still fail WP:RS and WP:V since mac news blog sites don't seem to count. Thus the real issue here is about process. Process was not properly followed, the AFD was not left up for 5 days. If we let this abuse of process occur uncorrectly it looks poorly upon Wikipedia in general. Essentially wikipedia can't even follow its own process. I realize another AFD will be a repeat of the same but at least it will follow the policies laid out. Essentially by not following process you'll make a martyr out of the GNAA and give everyone more reason to deride how wikipedia is managed. Please don't confuse these 2 seperate issues for one issue. Also Jimbo never touched on the first issue so it is diengenious to claim he has "spoken". --TrollHistorian 18:49, 1 December 2006 (UTC)

  • In the words of Tony Sidaway, "fuck process". This has had 17 AfDs in every one of which process failed because WP:ILIKEIT was allowed to override WP:V, WP:RS, WP:NPOV and WP:NOR. This time, for the first time ever, someone had the guts to call it right before the puppet theatre got properly underway. One day, when the dust has settled, a few editors might sit down and see if they can gather sufficient material from reliable secondary sources to write a neutral article on this group, but that day is not goign to happen any time soon ecause there is too much baggage for anything approaching a rational discussion. As Jimbo points out, with his usual clarity, nothing approaching a reliable source, and there never has been. Why are we even discussing this? We absolutely do not need to waste more of our time discussing an article which is not going to be re-created because Jimbo has endorsed its deletion. Persuade Jimbo first. Guy (Help!) 19:06, 1 December 2006 (UTC)
    • I'll take "Reasons Sidaway isn't an admin anymore" for $200. Regardless of whatever, closing it early helps nothing in this case, especially. It got to 18 AfDs because no one could be bothered to close it properly before. Doing it wrong an 18th time and then doing it wrong again at the DRV does nothing to convince anyone that the right call was made, even if the end result is the same. Was Jimbo endorsing as God-king? If not, does it matter? --badlydrawnjeff talk 19:11, 1 December 2006 (UTC)

Just a reminder that it is now December. I moved your closure to the December page from the November page. GRBerry 19:10, 1 December 2006 (UTC)

  • Oh FFS. The DRV was opened in November, the November archive is linked at the top of it. I am a simple fellow and I did the simple and obvious thing: I clicked the link. Guy (Help!) 21:17, 1 December 2006 (UTC)
Guy -- a few things: one, new items go at the top of the DRV log, not the bottom; two, GR is right to remind you to make sure you put the right entry in the right month; three, editorializing in the log is heavily frowned upon; four, closing a DRV in which you are involved is not good, early closures are not good, and overly-charged closures are not good. If you had waited a day, as process would suggest, I would have closed this calmly as "deletion endorsed", and much less heat would have been generated. A "fuck process" attitude in this case is detrimental to Wikipedia, and not terribly smart, either, unless you want to extend the drama? Fuck to "fucking process", says I; follow the process and the reward is calmness. Emulate Tony Sidaway, and one makes headaches for all. I frown upon the creation of this headache, and am sorry to see that you done it. Best wishes, Xoloz 20:10, 1 December 2006 (UTC)
I have reverted the closure. Jimbo won't die if we let folks talk about this for a few more days; your impassioned remarks in closing are unbecoming of the impartiality expected of a closer. Process (aka fairness) matters. Xoloz 20:15, 1 December 2006 (UTC)
Xoloz, I think that was foolish. We have wasted several orders of magnitude more time on this than it deserved. I did not !vote in the AfD, and frankly the whole thing is a foul, reeking troll-infested sewer creating division where none need exist. In the end I don't give a flying fuck whether we have an article or not as long as it's sourced (I seem to recall closing at least one of the AfDs as a speedy keep), but which admin is going to undelete this in the face of an unequivocal endorsement from Jimbo? The obsession with process is obscuring a fundamental and apparently irresolvable policy violation: lack of credible sources. If there were any, they would have been cited by now. That was Jimbo's point. So I stand by what I said above; we cannot possibly hope to have a reasonable debate about this now, and the existence of the debate is a festering boil of unreason with the WP:ILIKEIT vs. WP:V/WP:RS/WP:NPOV/WP:NOR debate being rehashed all over again, the fires liberally fuelled by trolls - which is precisely what GNAA (a group of self-confessed trolls) wants. It is a waste of time, effort, bandwidth and community angst. Let it die quietly and see if, in a few months time, some editors can't write a proper article citing decent sources. I don't see that closing the debate is more detrimental to calmness than that DRV, I honestly don't. The best way to have calm is to take away the cause of the unrest. But hey, that's what you get for trying to help. Guy (Help!) 21:56, 1 December 2006 (UTC)
You know I like you, Guy, but I ask to examine the language that you use in this case ("festering boil", etc.) There is nothing wrong with speaking so, except that such intense emotion obviously disqualifies one from rendering final judgment on a matter. You care about this case too much to have closed it, and your obvious attachment (evident in the slightly off-kilter way you closed it) was simply too much for me to ignore.
Jimbo has the power of fiat, but others using that power in his name have caused big problems (Userbox Wars, for example). You are correct that this GNAA matter has wasted a lot of time -- 48 more hours for fairness' sake may save us three weeks of drama. Given your attachment, I am sure you see my detachment and process-concern as foolish -- advocates for a cause often think non-advocates are crazy. The fact of the matter is that, given the present state of the !vote (and the certainty that spammers will be discounted), it is all but certain that GNAA will die this time. Giving GNAA's friends 48 hours more to record their feelings, search for sources, or appeal to Jimbo is a GOOD THING. Fairness now means rapid dispensing of foolish trolls later. "Roughshodding" now would mean giving some confused good people (and a lot of trolls) valid reason for appeal later. Best wishes, Xoloz 04:17, 2 December 2006 (UTC)
The "festering boil" is not about the article, it's about the argument about the article. GNAA are trolls, they thrive on drama, we are letting them get what they want at our expense. I care less than nothing about the article, but I am absolutely convinced that allowing the trolls yet another forum for their manoeuvrings is bad for the project. I'd be happy to be proven wrong, but I don't see much evidence of that yet. Guy (Help!) 07:35, 2 December 2006 (UTC)

Trolling? Please explain ANI deletion[edit]

I see you have deleted this thread on ANI with the summary of 'trolling'. I'd appreciate explanation how this thread constitutes trolling, particullary as it was started by me: do you accuse me of trolling? I think you should recreate the section, it was a valid and civil attempt to ask community for an input whether a case belongs at PAIN or not, and I see no trolling there (other than somewhat offensive posts by User:Ghirla, but then remove his comments, not the entire thread). PS. I'd have also thought that I'd be notified if a thread I started on ANI was removed due to 'vandalism'. As the matter is rather urgent and important, I do hope for your promot reply. Nonetheless since we all make mistakes (perhaps you meant to remove a different thread?) I am raising this issue on your talk page only and per fellow admin courtesy I am not recreating the thread until I hear from you (although I hope we don't loose much community input due to invisibility of the issue). -- Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | talk  20:02, 1 December 2006 (UTC)

see threads above. I removed it as trolling because, well, it is trolling. I left a comment on your Talk telling you what to do next, and more trolling was not one of the options. Please do be a good chap and pursue the options I outlined. Thanks. Guy (Help!) 21:19, 1 December 2006 (UTC)
Thank you for your reply (indeed I missed your reply). I respectfully disagree; particularly as my post at ANI is not a request for comment on Ghira's behaviour but whether the thread was rightly removed from PAIN (please note that it was not removed because the reviewer judged it was not a personal attack but because he felt I should pursue a DR instead (the only step left is ArbCom). I am going to restore the thread as it is not trolling (per WP:TROLL) - and as an administrator with a almost two years of history I believe I can recognize trolling when I see it and I don't think I troll. Further, with all due respect, I consider your accusation that I am trolling offensive - especially as I believe trolls should be banned from Wiki. So if you indeed think my post was trolling, let me encourage you to take appopriate steps as one should when dealing with a troll. PS. I also find your accusations that I am doing some kind of 'agitation' puzzling. I was accussed of vandalism and trolling (without any diffs). I reported the issue to PAIN. Is this agitation? Well, it's an agitation to respect WP:CIV and WP:NPA, if you want to call it that. Thank you. PS. Out of curiosity - because I have almost never seen threads deleted in that way - I looked for any policy basis to support your action. Even Wikipedia:Remove personal attacks, the strongest essay I could find, noted that only specific, offensive personal attacks should be removed but discussions should be left alone. Therefore you should (as I pointed above) remove particular personal attacks (if you can find any) from my posts, possibly report me to WP:PAIN if you wish - but not censor my request for comment on the PAIN activities.-- Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | talk  21:28, 1 December 2006 (UTC)
I was really hoping you and Ghirla could simply settle it like grown-ups. Seems my Mary Poppins tendency has been getting the better of me today. If you want me to attempt to mediate I don't mind, although it will take a while since I'm off singing in a concert tomorrow, but seriously the way the thread was phrased really didn't help. Pouring petrol on the flames is not, in my experience, a great way to put the fire out. Ho hum. My experience with Ghirla, incidentally, has, I think, been pretty good, but limited. However, I will go back and re-read things and see if another reading changes my impression. Do be aware, though, that the word censorship is almost invariably an indication that whatever is supposedly censored really did need to be got rid of. Guy (Help!) 22:03, 1 December 2006 (UTC)
Thank you for giving this a second thought. Do note there are two matters at here: at ANI I want to ask if the reason for removal of my thread from PAIN was valid (as far as I understand, it was not removed beacuse I failed to satisfy PAIN criteria, but because the reviewer decided I should pursue DR - and refused to comment on whether what I reported (and what User:Constanz agreed with) was indeed a personal attack or not). The second thing which I don't wish to raise on ANI (it's not the right place) is the question of whether Ghirla has been acting incivil - or whether (we all err...) I am overeacting. That issue is however more properly discussed at PAIN, where it cannot be because it was removed on a grounds I don't think are valid... you see my problem? That said, any and and all mediation you can offer would be appreciated (but please - follow the diffs as some editors have a habit of making unfounded statements that are, well, unfounded). PS. Please note that I tried a mediation once and asked Ghirla to participate: his reply and mediator's reply...-- Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | talk  22:09, 1 December 2006 (UTC)
You know something? It's not simple. I mean it. It's not going to be sorted by a posting to ANI, for sure, it's not an intervention case. Positng to the noticeboards is only ever going to look like an attempt to recruit people to your side. I think you are best, if Ghirla won't do mediation, to go to ArbCom, because if he won't mediate then there's not much the rest of us can do about it. Guy (Help!) 22:36, 1 December 2006 (UTC)
<sad laugh> If it was simple, do you think I'd be dealing with this recurring nightmare for two years? Yes, several users have now suggested ArbCom as the course I should take and perhaps it is the best solution. I still hope that just as WP:3RR violations are quickly dealth with at WP:ANI/3RR, WP:CIV violations can be dealth in a similar way at WP:PAIN, without the need to burden ArbCom. After all, Ghirla has been blocked twice in the past for incivility even before the estabilishment of WP:PAIN - thus my suprise that when I attempted to use this tool it seemed to have misfired - and on a really strange grounds as I noted above (why whether the case in a big picture may be worthy of a further DR would make a particular incivil comment by user(s) involved in the 'big picture case' immune to WP:NPA, WP:PAIN and such? It's as illogical as saying 'this article is now at WP:RFC so we can ignore 3RR. Or am I missing something here?).-- Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | talk  23:43, 1 December 2006 (UTC)

Trolling again. Ghirla was not blocked for incivility. His first block was based on Elonka's provocative and unsubstantiated complaint to ANI which she made on Piotrus' direct incite. I mean literally! Piotrus came to her page and told her what to do and she did even more as she frivolously titled the thread "Ethnic slur". (I already brought up in the past this Pioutrus' sad habit of inciting others, if possible, to achieve the content opponents' blocks and only when impossible to do this under his own name). Ghirla's second block (that caused so much outcry) was part of the post-Carnildo debacle. Block was made by Tony Sidaway (Admin no more and perhaps not even around anymore) for Ghirla's completely justified response to his typical Sydaway-style provocation. In the aftermath of this whole affair, TS is no more an admin (other things also played a role) and this was followed by the ill-fated, so called "Giano-ArbCom" that did nothing but raised the awareness among the content creating editors of the attempts to hijack the Wikipedia by those who see it as merely a social medium where they can realize their ambitions to be "in charge", the ambition that they never achieved, perhaps, in the real life. Too bad for the Wikipedia that all the non-editing users: IRC fairies, policy discussion activits, wannabe copyright experts, etc. are so badly overrepresented in the Wikipedia space.

JzG was right to see that thread right through and removed it as inappropriate. I wish all imporper attempts to use the boards for not what they are for treated similarly. --Irpen 00:06, 2 December 2006 (UTC)

Oh bloody hell. Here we have a situation where Irpen and Ghirla, both of whom I come across reasonably frequently and whose opinions I trust implicitly in complex matters related to certain ethnic and nationalistic issues, tell me that Piotrus is in the wrong, but then this is referenced back to Tony, who evidently disagrees in some respects, but whose judgement I have found in the past to be excellent if often unpopular. This really should go to arbitration, it is unquestionably not a candidate for any of the procedures tried so far, all of which are designed to fix either disputes between willing participants or unambiguous cases. I pronounce myself baffled and await a much more complete description of the history, which I am confident will take many hours to unravel. WP:RFAR is that way, gentlemen, and I await the opening salvoes with interest. Guy (Help!) 00:26, 2 December 2006 (UTC)
See Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/IncidentArchive133#Ghirlandajo for Tony's judgement in this case. --Irpen 00:43, 2 December 2006 (UTC)

JzG, Tony's reaction was oversized, because following Carnildo's resysopping, a lot of users expressed their disgust (including your servant). At that time, Tony was going completely nuts and blocking people just for the fun of it. And he had to hand in his resign form after (or during) the arbcom case, and rightly so, if you ask me. So Tony's block was inappropriate, as were a few others he made around that time. -- Grafikm (AutoGRAF) 00:53, 2 December 2006 (UTC)

Yes, I remember it. Nobody comes out of that incident smelling of roses, if you ask me. Guy (Help!) 00:57, 2 December 2006 (UTC)
I concur but as for your suggestion of ArbCom, I am afraid this will be a similar situation with lots of bad blood, lots of people going nuts and no action on behalf of ArbCom which will be able to see that this is an attempt of reducing a fierce content and POV disagreement as a Civility issue in order to get an upper hand. Piotrus is not alone who dose it and Ghirla is not an only user against whom this trick is being tried. Take a look at this when I tried to prevent a similar misrepresentation of the issues in case of Piotrus' friends. --Irpen 01:03, 2 December 2006 (UTC)

JzG, sorry if this is tiresome. You may delete this thread if it bugs you. Piotrus knows that I was telling the truth but since I was challenged to come up with diffs while I told exactly what I was talking about and I don't believe any of the involved could have possibly forgotten the course of events, I brought about some diffs. Here is the falsely titled thread that shows that several editors did not agree to such mischaracterization. Here are Piotrus' misleading of uninvolved Elonka to act with another post shortly after "Thanking her for taking a stance". And just shortly after Elonka pointing out to Piotrus to the fact that he was not truthful in the followup to that wild ANI thread. Finally, the two sections right after that are also telling. There are other instances of the attempts by this user to achieve the blocks of the content opponents but this would be too much for the talk page of our good friend here. Maybe this is already too much. So, feel free to delete this stuff. --Irpen 03:14, 2 December 2006 (UTC)

JzG, I used to share your confidence in Tony's judgment, but after his wild blocks and idiosyncratic demeanour in September, I now think, with Grafikm, that it comes and goes. If you want to get caught up (I realize that likely enough you don't, and I'd totally sympathise, just ignore this post if you prefer), the simplest way may be to cast an eye over this rejected request for arbitration against Ghirlandajo from September. Tony's 3-hour "cooling-down" block of Ghirla was fresh then, and is discussed in a number of the statements, together with other relevant matters. Bishonen | talk 03:41, 2 December 2006 (UTC).
Re Tony, I quite agree. The thing is, I don't see how this dispute can be fixed without some kind of binding decision, or at the very least an extensive review of the evidence. Seems to me that a lot of people have already made up their minds one way or another (and mostly in favour of Ghirla, by the looks of things). One way or another, though, we need some form of closure so that the parties can move on. Guy (Help!) 07:40, 2 December 2006 (UTC)
Let me just say this: careful review of the posts would show that Irpen is far from being entirly correct or neutral. This shows that virtually nobody supported the side I disagreed with and Ghirla agreed with. This thread speaks for itself particularly well, and feel free to ask Elonka for her input. As for this, let me just point interested parties to my reply to Elonka which Irpen forgot to mention. Last, but not least, if 'most users support Ghirla', I will eat my hat without a mustard; one need just to look at Ghirla's RfC to see where 'majority' usualy is. Most users just don't know what we can do, and we don't see ArbCom as the best solution: we don't want a prolific editor like Ghirla blocked pernamently (I completly agree here with Irpen that this would not be best for Wiki), we just want him to stop offending us. Many editors on Wiki learn how to grow thick skin, but there is only so much you can take being called vandal, troll, nationalist and such until you start to wonder what you are doing here... and in the end, if users like me, Halibutt, and dozens of others Ghirla continues to offend leave, I do wonder if Wiki will truly be better off...-- Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | talk  04:12, 4 December 2006 (UTC)
I don't think I implied it was straightforward, quite the opposite. I don't believe that rehashing the arguments here is going to achieve much, though. I can't fix the problem. Guy (Help!) 07:36, 4 December 2006 (UTC)

Neil Woodford[edit]

Why did you delete this?

You think it was autobiographical?

Are you serious?

Did you even read the page?

The guy is Head of Investment for Invesco Perpetual, and is managing £12b+. Don't you imagine he has better things to do with his time?

Whether or not you have heard of him is hardly relevant. I dare say most people have not heard of Rusty Foster, yet he seems to warrant an article here.

A man who controls £12 billion is by definition notable.

He is well-known and well-reported, see http://news.google.co.uk/news?num=100&hl=en&q=%22neil%20woodford%22&ie=UTF-8&oe=UTF-8&sa=N&tab=wn for evidence. Nssdfdsfds 02:19, 2 December 2006 (UTC)

Articles created by single purpose accounts and written in excessively florid terms are very often deleted. Guy (Help!) 07:42, 2 December 2006 (UTC)
That's not a justification. Could you please bring it back. If you think it should be deleted, it would be reasonable to leave it a few days so that a few people could have a chance to read it. It's clearly not spam or whatever, and the man is decidedly notable. Nssdfdsfds 21:03, 3 December 2006 (UTC)
Feel free to re-create the article unambiguously establishing notability per WP:BIO from sources, per WP:RS. This discussion is already longer than the deleted text. Guy (Help!) 22:13, 3 December 2006 (UTC)

Tom Birch[edit]

Tom Birch is NOT the MP for Bromsgrove! Do not add anything that suggests he may be.

I didn't, some other user did. An article states that someone is a sitting MP, that means we don't delete it under WP:CSD criterion A7. I did not fact-check it, because I was patrolling a CSD backlog of some hundreds of articles. Claim of notability = no A7, end of story. Guy (Help!) 11:04, 3 December 2006 (UTC)

Trolling accusation?[edit]

If you think I am a troll, take me to arb com. ATren 16:16, 3 December 2006 (UTC)

More misrepresentation. What I said was, try asking a more generic question which does not assume as a premise the acceptance of your theory, or else risk being dismissed as a troll. Completely different. Trolls generally don't get taken to ArbCom, we simply block them for disruption or ignore them. Guy (Help!) 17:09, 3 December 2006 (UTC)

See what I mean?[edit]

Deng is back. Didn't take long. And he had used that IP to post to some of his "pet" articles before as you can see here. I feel like I'm playing Whack-a-mole when I'm dealing with him. --Woohookitty(meow) 22:13, 3 December 2006 (UTC)

I know just how you feel. I currently have ATren siding with Fys, who I blocked for a completely unambiguous 3RR violation and who has been bleating about it ever since. Guy (Help!) 22:16, 3 December 2006 (UTC)
If you withdraw your unwarranted accusation against the neutrality of my edits, I shall stop "bleating". Removing sourced content is vandalism, and is exempt from 3RR. Fys. &#147;Ta fys aym&#148;. 22:20, 3 December 2006 (UTC)
LOL! So you're allowed to keep misrepresenting the reason for your block, and editorialise in the ArbCom case that sanctioned you, but I have to apologise for hurting your delicate feelings by noting that you have a stated political bias? No wonder you're in politics! It's a geat technique, though - remove, bit by bit, the 99% of your complaint where you are unambiguously in the wrong, try to find a bit where there might, under some (mis)interpretations be a grain of reason, and then use that to assert that you have won the entire argument. I'm sure it works brilliantly in the council chamber. Just as well Wikipedia is not politics, really. Guy (Help!) 22:29, 3 December 2006 (UTC)
Do you have any evidence that my preference for including the Tim Ireland weblog in Anne Milton was motivated by my political views? Fys. &#147;Ta fys aym&#148;. 22:32, 3 December 2006 (UTC)
Stop moving the goalposts. You were blocked for an unambiguous 3RR violation. Get over it. Guy (Help!) 22:45, 3 December 2006 (UTC)
You made that accusation. I know you cannot substantiate it and I want you to withdraw it. Fys. &#147;Ta fys aym&#148;. 22:47, 3 December 2006 (UTC)
And I want you to fuck off. Guy (Help!) 22:56, 3 December 2006 (UTC)

Harassment[edit]

Without prejudice to any other disagreement that may be happening between us, DO NOT include that link again. You know which one. Wikipedia:Harassment refers. Fys. &#147;Ta fys aym&#148;. 22:44, 3 December 2006 (UTC)

You what? Guy (Help!) 22:56, 3 December 2006 (UTC)

Portfolio for ArbCom[edit]

On Wikipedia:Arbitration Committee Elections December 2006/Summary table, I added a column "Examples" with links that exhibit a candidate's arbitration skills. My motivation is that as a voter, I don't want to just rely on a candidate's words, but also see their actions. Moreover, I believe a portfolio of "model cases" to remember in difficult situations can be useful for each candidate, as well.

So far I have entered examples for the candidates who registered first (from their questions page), and I'm not sure if and when I will get to yours, so you may want to enter an example or two yourself. — Sebastian (talk) 00:09, 4 December 2006 (UTC)    (Please reply on this page.)

Tysons Galleria deletion[edit]

You deleted the Tysons Galleria article, as spam. I think it's a legit article on the local geography here. --Howdybob 08:34, 4 December 2006 (UTC)

  • Wikipedia is not a directory, but someone thought it was so created articles on all his company's property portfolio. Feel free to create an article which substantiates the notability of this mall from non-trivial independent reliable sources, but merely existing is not enough, the mall's own website is insufficient as sourcing, the list of stores is a job we can safely leave to the mall website, copying and pasting sections of history from the mall's website is a copyright violation, and per no original research we can't call it "upscale" without an independent source. And so on - I think you get the drift here. I will repeat what I said to those involved with numerous similar articles: if you can produce evidence that this has been the primary subject of multiple non-trivial coverage in independent reliable secondary sources (and that specifically excludes reprints of press releases), feel free to create an article based on those. Guy (Help!) 10:08, 4 December 2006 (UTC)
OK. I just liked that I had added the trivia tidbit about the movie "The First Kid" being filmed there, which I saw. (That's not original research; I'm sure there are photos on the website which can be compared to the movie.) --Howdybob 09:57, 5 December 2006 (UTC)
As trivia goes it's reasonable trivia (if referenced to a reliable source, of course), but it's not much of a claim to notability :-) Guy (Help!) 10:01, 5 December 2006 (UTC)

Before you ask....[edit]

... the single purpose account is Sspillers (talkcontribslogsblock userblock log) (Sara Spillers, who added nothing but links to a single site, four per article). Guy (Help!) 15:16, 4 December 2006 (UTC)

JzG, you are hardcore. — coelacan talk — 15:52, 4 December 2006 (UTC)

  • Maybe. Recent experience indicates that even undoing links added four per article in alphabetical order by an account with no other contributions will still attract controversy :-/ Guy (Help!) 15:54, 4 December 2006 (UTC)

Advanced Transit Association (ATRA)[edit]

It is accurate to describe ATRA as "pro-PRT" in the same sense that it is accurate to describe The Sierra Club as "anti-littering". I would like to think that we have a larger agenda that is limited only by our focus on technical solutions to transportation problems. A significant part of our membership favors other transit alternatives than PRT, such as "Dual mode transit" and "Vactrain". There are also significant differences of opinion among the PRT advocates (wheels/maglev, suspended/supported). Certainly, we are not a monolithic group trying to suppress free thinking.

Broadly, we would like to see a larger freer transportation market that would be more accommodating to using advanced technologies (like maglev, linear motors, automated operations, reserved right-of-ways and right-sized hardware). The total effect is that we favor PRT, but we also favor all the little steps along the way (and beyond) that might solve problems with congestion, and might also help with the degradation of our cities and our environment due to congestion and the current transportation technology choices.

You are right, however, we are an advocacy group with a mission to educate the public. Perhaps it would be helpful to have an article about the organisation? On the other hand, I am unwilling to stir up any controversy by encouraging it. For some people, we seem to be the devil.

I see no benefit to my actual intervention at this point. Even when I try, I often fail the test of NPOV. That is as it should be in my current role.

If I can be of assistance, if I can provide resources or background, please feel free to let me know. We have a lot of history (since 1976) and I represent a prestigious, diverse, and knowledgeable membership. Bob 21:27, 4 December 2006 (UTC) (ATRA President)

I can believe all of the above, but in the end ATRA is not neutral in respect of PRT, is it? Everything on the ATRA website indicates pretty uncritical support for PRT. It's fine to include what ATRA says, but we should be clear about your agenda; you are not reviewing transport in the round, but advocating changes in transport. I am actually encouraged by your acknowledgement of your own bias, you would be a welcome contributor on the Talk page of that article. Incidentally, I am a daily user of mixed-mode transportation, and I think the future of transport is bicycle-shaped :-) Guy (Help!) 00:00, 5 December 2006 (UTC)
Perhaps this will help.... J. Edward Anderson.... Avidor 18:45, 8 December 2006 (UTC)

Query[edit]

Guy, why did you delete the image of Elie Wiesel's father in Night (book)? The novel is about the relationship between Weisel and the father. There is no other way to obtain an image, as the father is dead, it has no commercial value, and we have no reason to believe anyone would mind. Also, don't these deletions have to go through images for deletion? SlimVirgin (talk) 21:54, 4 December 2006 (UTC)

It was listed as fair use in illustrating the subject of the photograph, but the article in which it was placed was a book by the son of the subject of the photograph. The identity of the original copyright holder is also unclear from the stated upload source. Guy (Help!) 23:56, 4 December 2006 (UTC)

Ali Sina[edit]

Why did you remove the Ali Sina article? The admin deleting the article specifically asked that it should be recreated using more appropriate sources, and that is what I have just done. -- Karl Meier 11:38, 5 December 2006 (UTC)

  • Like I said, it's currently being reviewed, and like you said, a redirect to an article on the faith freedom site would be much less problematic. Guy (Help!) 11:41, 5 December 2006 (UTC)

The problem is that BhaiSaab is using a false claim about the Ali Sina article being deleted for notability issues, to advance his pro-Islam agenda and delete large amounts of valid information on a large amount of articles. He should be blocked for vandalizing these articles. -- Karl Meier 13:01, 5 December 2006 (UTC)

  • Or you should engage on Talk and achieve consensus for inclusion, in which case he can't do a thing about it. An editorial dispute between a supporter and an opponent of something is likely to end up in bilateral sanctions, especially if it includes edit-warring. What is needed is relibale secondary sources which point to faithfreedom being a notable or significant critic (or supporter) of the article subject; those sources, taken to Talk, should be sufficient to allow an acceptably neutral consensus treatment of the subject. If BhaiSaab chooses not to participate, or the consensus goes against him and he refuses to accept it, then the case becomes clear and action can be taken without the need to take sides in the dispute (which I do not propose to do). The same, of course, applies to all parties. Guy (Help!) 13:06, 5 December 2006 (UTC)

Ali Sina talk page[edit]

Could you please restore the Ali Sina talk page with all its history. There are months of debates on that talk page which should not be lost through what I consider a premature page delete.--CltFn 13:20, 5 December 2006 (UTC)

For values of debate which may include months of trolling and arm-waving arguments :-) I have restored the history, I recommend you don't try to merge it back in, having the history should be sufficient. Guy (Help!) 13:36, 5 December 2006 (UTC)

RD[edit]

Sorry I ve been away for a short time and have only just noticed this post. I believed I had responded to all the criticisms. To which behaviour do you refer?--Light current 14:09, 5 December 2006 (UTC)

Do you have any unaddressed issues with posts I have recently made?--Light current 14:21, 5 December 2006 (UTC)

I'm just reminding you. The issue is live on the admin noticeboard. Guy (Help!) 14:40, 5 December 2006 (UTC)
Im acutely aware of that. Im trying not to aggravate anybody!--Light current 14:44, 5 December 2006 (UTC)
Jolly good. Carry on, then, there's an encyclopaedia to build!  :-) Guy (Help!) 14:56, 5 December 2006 (UTC)
THanks for your concern! --Light current 15:04, 5 December 2006 (UTC)

Candidacy withdrawn?[edit]

I'm a little bit disappointed to see that you withdrew from the ArbCom race, especially since you were ahead at the time by about 10 votes and had a pretty good chance of election. It's probably pointless to try to convince you to change your mind, but I will say I think you would have been a good arbitrator and hope you run again next year. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 16:06, 5 December 2006 (UTC)

  • No, the clinching argument for me was Cryptic, an editor whose judgement I have always respected immensely. Deals poorly with trolls sums it up perfectly, the discussions on the questions for the candidate and the vote page were completely dominated by "let's ignore the 99% of good stuff and focus on the 1% which could, with a stretch of the imagination, be portrayed as bad". If I had responded better to the pro-PRT puffery on personal rapid transit, ATren would not be able to make so much play out of the spurious assertion that I was in some way conflicted (the fact that I am a huge fan of alternative transportation is not given in evidence, for example). Ditto Fys, who I should simply have told to go away rather than debating his ridiculous bluster. A block endorsed by multiple other admins is not a controversial block, and even if it were, it would not matter at all unless people are determined to make it matter. Do you see ArbCom making much of that particular block? I don't. It was getting sucked into his self-justifying trolling which caused the problem. But even that was a trivial thing compared with getting sucked in again in the election process. The right answer is: you are entitled to your view, I beg to differ. So. The problem is that I want to persuade people to accept things which they plainly have no intention of accepting, however reasonable, however many people tell them the same thing. The solution with these people is to learn to disengage. You'd have thought that years of Usenet participation would teach this, but of course what happened was I got sucked into Usenet mode, and Wikipedia is not Usenet. That was a fundamentally bad call. I will defend my edits to personal rapid transit, my block of Fys, my deletion of Mega Society, right up to ArbCom if need be, but I cannot in good faith fail to put my hands up to being royally trolled. That would have been a huge problem had I been elected, so fair play to the trolls for serving a purpose for once.
I only put myself forward in the first place because I could not see enough candidates on the list who I would support unequivocally, and some I would oppose to the bitter end; thankfully there are now some more excellent candidates, certainly better than I would ever have been. It would be nice to have time to consider rather than wrestling in the mudpits, but in the end I must enjoy the wrestling or I wouldn't do it, I guess, and not many people have called into question my abilities as an admin (none I can think of whose opinion I value, anyway), so I'll go on doing what I do and most people seem to want me to continue doing.
Not that I wasn't grateful for the support votes I got, it gives me a warm feeling I've not had since hitting WP:100. It's easy to plug away in blissful ignorance of what people think of you, and good to know that even Cryptic's opposition was reluctant, so I hope he doesn't think me an irredeemable case :-) I do intend to spend more time on longer-term abuses, and to that end have seen a couple of workshop resolutions make the final cut in ArbCom cases. I'll satisfy my desire to sit and ponder by doing more of that I think. Please rest assured that I am pretty sanguine about the whole thing. Guy (Help!) 16:31, 5 December 2006 (UTC)
Hear hear. You had my support for your candidacy, but I was never convinced ArbCom was the best and highest use for you. Keep doing what you do best. Regards, Newyorkbrad 16:36, 5 December 2006 (UTC)
Seconded, although we need more people like you on ArbCom than what we've got. I'm glad you're keeping positive about it, though. --badlydrawnjeff talk 16:50, 5 December 2006 (UTC)

I'm really sorry to hear about it. I thought you were one of the best candidates for the job. "Dealing with trolls" (whatever it is he meant by that) isn't one of the major job requirements - it's dedication, determination and the ability to see through all the bullshit that makes up an arbcomm case. I think you are good at figuring out what the issues are, and I think that the arbcomm will be worse off without you. Guettarda 17:39, 5 December 2006 (UTC)

Excellent withdrawal statement. Fast payment, great ebayer, will buy from again, A+++++. Keep your chin up! Love, always, - crz crztalk 17:46, 5 December 2006 (UTC)
LOL! Thanks for that, I needed a good giggle :-) Guy (Help!) 17:53, 5 December 2006 (UTC)

I hate doing 'me too' posts, but I echo the above. Keep up the good work, and maybe next time around, hm? Tony Fox (arf!) 23:02, 5 December 2006 (UTC)

  • Hey. "Me too" too, too. I think I would have described it as "doesn't suffer fools gladly". Which isn't generally a fault -- but set and setting, y'know? --jpgordon∇∆∇∆ 04:04, 6 December 2006 (UTC)
    • What a pity, I'm sorry to see this. I was impressed by the way you've been dealing with, hrrrrm, I'd better not say, but you know who I mean. You certainly suffered him a lot more patiently than I ever did (not much of a compliment as such). I think you'd have been good in ArbCom. Bishonen | talk 04:16, 6 December 2006 (UTC).

While I've seen you around, I haven't much interacted with you (I think my first discussion with you is directly below), but I just wanted to mention that your introspective comments above have definitely garnered my respect. I haven't read any information about the examples you list above, but I know from my own experience, that for me there's always a fine line between assuming good faith, and not feeding the trolls. Personally, I usually tend to lean too much on AGF, even when it's becoming rather clear that original research or even personal point-of-view is involved in the discussion, so I truly empathise. Presuming you're around next year, I hope you try for it again. The discernment in your comments above lead to me think that I would support such a nom in the future. - jc37 07:32, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

Why is it that I return from a short vacation and find that most of the candidates I wanted to vote for at ArbCom have already withdrawn? I'm bummed. -- Donald Albury 16:48, 9 December 2006 (UTC)

Problems with User:Iantresman and Wolf Effect[edit]

Thank you for the notice. I would like to ask a favour as someone with no vested interested in the article. I'd like to demonstrate on a point-by-point basis, that ScienceApologist's assertions are a gross misrepresentation. And I'd like you to decide whose position is accurate. I would do this on the Talk:Wolf_effect page, and no science background will be necessary. Would you agree? --Iantresman 17:30, 5 December 2006 (UTC)

  • That would require the involvement of other editors with much greater experience in the field than I have (I am an engineer, I can understand a scientific argument, but my reading of the RFAR leads me to believe that in the end it will come down to matters abstruse). Plus more eyes is always better. The best way to make that happen is probably through WP:RFC or the science Wikiproject. You need to tread carefully because of your history. I will take part in the debate if I think I can usefuly contribute; article RFC refers to the talk page anyway.
I've started the RFC process. Let the games commence. Guy (Help!) 17:54, 5 December 2006 (UTC)

WP:OR reversion[edit]

Since you also reverted such edits of User:38.119.134.181 at Darth Vader, I thought I should bring this anon to your attention again. Based on this user's current contributions, and notices on the adjoining talk page they would seem to be not ceasing in such actions. (Continued disruption...) - jc37 19:14, 5 December 2006 (UTC)

  • Sorted. I'd suggest for faster response try WP:AIV but I don't think that would be especially accurate right now :o) Guy (Help!) 19:55, 5 December 2006 (UTC)

You cabalist, you![edit]

File:Anti-Star Trek Cabal logo.png
I knew it!  OzLawyer / talk  21:24, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

Eowbotm[edit]

Hi JzG,

I see that you handled the block for User:Eowbotm's sockpuppets on WP:AN/I (for which I am quite grateful = ). Well, he appears to be back as an IP address. This may be worth looking into. Thank you. —Lantoka ( talk | contrib) 21:40, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

Railfans gone mad?[edit]

Is it just me, or is this a bit much? And yes, it's part of a series. --Calton | Talk 00:17, 7 December 2006 (UTC)

  • Oh dear. Needs trimming and merging, I think. Guy (Help!) 00:18, 7 December 2006 (UTC)

NPA[edit]

As per [7] as well as others: Please see Wikipedia's no personal attacks policy. Comment on content, not on contributors; personal attacks damage the community and deter users. Note that continued personal attacks may lead to blocks for disruption. Please stay cool and keep this in mind while editing. Thank you. --Cat out 01:09, 7 December 2006 (UTC)

  • Go away. You have accused me more than once of bad faith nominations without a shred of evidence, and that is unacceptable. Stating that forking commando to a list of celebrities who go commando is an atrocious way of solving the obsessive addition of cruft is absolutely not a personal attack, not least because I didn't even look at who created it or who the obsessive poster of this cruft is. Wikipedia is not tabloid journalism. Note that posting template warnings on the Talk pages of admins may in itself be considered incivil and disruptive, especially when the post in question was on the admin noticeboard and thus available for every admin to see, should they choose to react. Guy (Help!) 08:13, 7 December 2006 (UTC)

Ali Sina question[edit]

Hello Guy, I've just noticed that in addition to redirecting this deleted article you've restored the history. Out of curiosity, what was your logic for that? Look forward to your response. (Netscott) 02:37, 7 December 2006 (UTC)

For DRV purposes. It can be deleted any time now, I think, but there may be GFDL issues (though probably not as Karl rewrote from scratch). Guy (Help!) 08:08, 7 December 2006 (UTC)

Experiment proves that Personal Rapid Transit is mainly about politics... not technology[edit]

Why else would PRT promoter Mr. Grant (David Gow) who lives in Seattle rush to edit new pages on two MInnesota politicians?[8]. ATren (from Buffalo, NY) has edited the Michele Bachmann page. Three politicians not even mentioned in the PRT article... Amazing coincidence!!!Avidor 04:24, 7 December 2006 (UTC)

So, you're surprised we occasionally check on the Bachmann, Olson, and Zimmermann articles, just in case the guy responsible for the "dumpbachmann", "dumpmarkolson" and "greenpartygonebad" blogs decided to use those articles to spread his anti-PRT message? And this is somehow "proof" about something PRT-related?
By the way, I found out about the Olson/Zimmermann articles by looking at your contributions. I didn't comment on them because they looked OK to me, nothing really inflammatory or inaccurate. Mr Grant explicitly complimented you on your relatively NPOV presentation, and only requested a few clarifications on sources. What's your beef? ATren 05:14, 7 December 2006 (UTC)
Update: it seems Mr Grant did do some editing to the Olson article - he basically removed the word "unproven" before PRT and added a list of bills sponsored by Olson. Now, how does this indicate a conspiracy? ATren 05:37, 7 December 2006 (UTC)
You left out Gow casting doubt on Olson's history of abusing his staff[9]... the Star Tribune article he cites is wrong. Olson did throw a typewriter at a secretary in his first term and Olson got into trouble for abusing staff years later... Olson... Bachmann... Zimmermann... PRT promoters sure are an interesting bunch... you'd think they'd get a mention in the PRT article.... incidentally, I think you gave Bill James a raw deal - There was a story about J-Pods in the Star Tribune and on Fox Television. Just because Bill James made his prototype in his garage using duct tape and plywood doesn't mean you should keep him out of the article. Does Unimodal have a prototype? How about Tritrack? I'll bet Tritrack never got on Fox Television.Avidor 06:23, 7 December 2006 (UTC)
So, Mr Grant adds sourced content about Olson's domestic violence charge... and this "proves that PRT is mainly about politics"? ATren 07:28, 7 December 2006 (UTC)

Of course! Why else would your esteemed Advanced Transit Assoc. cite the expert opinion of now convicted felon Dean Zimmermann(and installer of bathroom fixtures) on its website[10] ...But, I'm poking a sharp stick at the over-inflated optimism of gadget invention that is at the core of the cult worship of technology (that is also at the geeky heart of Wikipedia). Nevermind that PRT, like perpetual motion machines and cold fusion are impossible fantasies... thirty-plus years of failure are only more reason to sing as the wacky inventors do in Chitty Chitty Bang Bang "from the ashes of disaster grow the roses of success!!!"[11] (there really should be a link to that video on the PRT page)Avidor 14:16, 7 December 2006 (UTC)

I see that Bob Dunning, ATRA Chairman is helping with the PRT page[12][13]When the troubled Rep. Mark Olson insisted last session that ATRA be consulted on the Central Corridor, he was nearly laughed off the floor[14]Avidor 22:29, 7 December 2006 (UTC)

I would just like to point out this fact: neither Mr Grant nor I had any major gripes about Avidor's recent contribitions to the Olson and Zimmermann articles, and in fact Mr Grant's participation on those articles was purely constructive. So really, all that is actually proven in this so called "experiment" is that Mr Grant and I have no problem with Avidor the person - only his disinformation campaign. When he sticks to the facts and acts in good faith, we have no problem with his activities (neither here nor off-wiki). For me, it's never been personal.

Avidor, perhaps going forward we can see more of the constructive edits you've made on Olson and Zimmermann, and less of the hyperbole you display in this thread? ATren 17:19, 8 December 2006 (UTC)

J. Edward Anderson...Avidor 18:55, 8 December 2006 (UTC)
Actually, it's not bad for a first cut. I haven't read it thoroughly, but it seems pretty neutral. There are a few things I might change (the quotes section probably should be moved to Wikiquote, and there may be a few parts that should be toned down) so don't get offended if I edit it in the next few days.
I'm not sure if Anderson is notable enough for an article, though. JzG, what do you think?ATren 19:08, 8 December 2006 (UTC)

Please take a look at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Starfleet Judge Advocate General[edit]

Is the merge/rename/compliation they have performed here per deletion process policy? Since people are now hurling accusations of bad faith in all directions, I am reluctant to comment on the propriety of this, but it feel so ... gamey.--ElaragirlTalk|Count 07:50, 7 December 2006 (UTC)

If they had fixed the fundamental problem, instead of just citing even more original media, I'd be happy, but no. The new article still relies entirely on original media. Guy (Help!) 08:07, 7 December 2006 (UTC)
laughs in amusment I've been RfC'd by Cool Cat for incivility and disruption. And being a deltionist. My irony alert has runneth over. More to the point, he's jerked down the AfD notice again. Husnock , at least, seems to be editing in good faith (and as fast as he can) to find at least some kind of sourcing for things. I'm more concerned about the precident this kind of tapdancing will set for other deletions. --ElaragirlTalk|Count 14:49, 7 December 2006 (UTC)

TOS TrekMUSE[edit]

Um, you meant to put that at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/TOS TrekMUSE (2nd nomination), right? Morwen - Talk 13:44, 7 December 2006 (UTC)

You are so right. My inbound spam filter has just gone bang and all hell has broken loose in RL. Guy (Help!) 13:54, 7 December 2006 (UTC)

ScienceApologist[edit]

I feel like I'm telling tales, but I feel that ScienceApologist's behaviour has demonstrably failed to meet those standards described in the recent Arbitration case,[15]

  • In the discussions on the Wolf effect, I've just been called a "bean counter",[16]
  • In another discussion on William G. Tifft, I've just been called a liar,[17]
  • He's also confirmed that those who model quasars are the "ultimate authority over what is significant" and he's "not budging from that position", when the Arbitration case noted that he should "respect all policies and guidelines, in spirit as well as letter, when editing articles concerning some alternative to conventional science" [18]
  • I also note that he's now trying to remove the Wolf effect from the Redshift article,[19], again in defiance of the Arbitration case.
  • I don't think I'm being aggressive, or unreasonable myself, and am providing sufficient verifiable, reliable sources.
  • This is in additional to ScienceApologist's original complain against me, where he took my peer reviewed sources, and deprecated a number of researchers as "a self-employed crystal technician" and "employee of Xerox Corp", again noted in the arbitration case,[20]. --Iantresman 15:48, 7 December 2006 (UTC)

CC. Case Arbitrator Fred Bauer.

  • I will look at this when I have more time (I am in the middle of a bit of a crisis right now) but I will repeat what I have said before, the two of you disagree so vehemently on so many things that it is going to require immense effort on both your parts to be at all productive on the same article, and that effort is going to have to start with deciding not to rise to the bait. I appreciate that you are not happy about this, and if SA is removing stuff wholesale, and not debating them on Talk, you may need to ask him nicely if he wouldn't mind taking them to Talk, or maybe collecting all of them in a monster RFC, but SA is acting in what must be assumed to be good faith based on his assessment of policy, which assessment is in general correct per the ArbCom case. So while his style may be aggressive, his actions may well be acceptable, as long as he does not go too far. Take a deep breath and remember there is no deadline, in time we can hopefully come to some kind of mutually acceptable resolution. And if not, well, at least we should be able to demonstrate that we tried our damndest, no? I suggest you do something else for a while, or maybe collect together the disputed statements and begin the debate on Talk. Remember, if your actions are unambiguously in line with the outcomes of the ArbCom case (discuss, do not disrupt, remain calm and civil) you are much more likely to get your way, or at least some part of it. Above all, resist the temptation to play the man instead of the ball. Guy (Help!) 17:27, 7 December 2006 (UTC)

Arbcom elections[edit]

  • Support: sadly, you've had to withdraw due to some minor indiscretions. Alas, such is politics! David Mestel(Talk) 17:42, 7 December 2006 (UTC)

No worries![edit]

Anytime, Guy. Just remember, you're only mortal. :P -- saberwyn 11:16, 8 December 2006 (UTC)

  • You really get around, don't you? -- saberwyn 11:44, 8 December 2006 (UTC)
  • It doesn't feel like it - CSD - AFD - DRV - AN - repeat :-) Guy (Help!) 12:10, 8 December 2006 (UTC)

My article[edit]

I'm notable. And I've an inalienable right to write about myself on here. I'll see you in court if you keep this malarky of deleting my stuff up. Stop smoking waccy baccy, and get back to the real world. Sheesh, geez louise, will you stop being an idiot already?? --Leonalewis 13:54, 8 December 2006 (UTC)

  • WP:NLT. Thank you and goodnight. Guy (Help!) 13:56, 8 December 2006 (UTC)

While the editor in question was clearly uncivil (and particularly with the legal threat above), I think the subject of article Leona-Louise Lewis is indeed notable. She's one of the three finalists in The X Factor UK and Ireland series 3, whose winner will be announced December 20. That seems to guarantee public interest at least until then, and possibly thereafter, particularly with the controversy over another finalist's claim that the final contest has been rigged in her (LLL's) favor. May I request that you restore the article, even if you leave the editor blocked? Thank you. SAJordan talkcontribs 14:36, 8 Dec 2006 (UTC).

I have redirected it as with Leona Lewis where, amazingly, someone seems to have spent some time trying to post an inflated article., I wonder who that could possibly have been? :o) Guy (Help!) 14:41, 8 December 2006 (UTC)
A bunch of different people, including latterly 86.42.7.117 in Dublin, who seems to have made many other music-related edits, while Lewis is English, so that doesn't seem to have been a vanity page, more like a true wiki collaboration of fans. It was changed to a redirect while Lewis was still one of a crowd of contestants. Will that reason change now that she's one of three finalists? Or if she wins? (Last year's winner has his own page; so does one of the other current finalists; both are longer than the LL article at its most "inflated", and I haven't seen the LLL version to compare them.) I think the deletion-or-redirect of the LL/LLL articles could have waited until Lewis is eliminated (if that happens), since in the meantime there will be many contest-watchers wanting to learn about the contestants, as with the equivalent US program American Idol. Jumping the gun seems like an assertion that (a) few people would be interested in the current finalists – unlikely – or (b) she's already a loser – a crystal-ball reading. SAJordan talkcontribs 16:05, 8 Dec 2006 (UTC).
Contest-watchers can look at the show's website, where they will get more, and more up-to-date, information. I think we'll comfortably have this sorted out before the publication deadline. There being none, and all... Guy (Help!) 16:39, 8 December 2006 (UTC)
Fair warning: I'll hold you to that exact deadline, using the most modern timekeeping technology. But let's at least have a decision before the sun sets opposite the Heel Stone, as by then the contest will be over.
Oh, and per discussion with Onorem, I suspect the Leonalewis you blocked was an imposter. What with arson and leg-shaving, the Leona-Louise Lewis article (which I never saw) sounds like a hoax. The fan-written Leona Lewis article, however, was straightforward. SAJordan talkcontribs 17:40, 8 Dec 2006 (UTC).
All of which is entirely plausible. Is it midsummer yet? We'd better shovel the snow off the stone and find out... My preference in all such cases is to let the dust settle and then quietly decide what to do about it. If she wins and gets a recording deal, it's probably a shoo-in, so it seems pointless to argue in advance of an event that is, after all, only days away. Guy (Help!) 17:48, 8 December 2006 (UTC)

Barb Biggs Speedy Delete[edit]

JzG, please note, wp:speedy states:

Non-notable subjects with their importance asserted: Articles that have obviously non-notable subjects are still not eligible for speedy deletion unless the article "does not assert the importance or significance of its subject". If the article gives a claim that might be construed as making the subject notable, it should be taken to a wider forum. However, articles with only a statement like "This guy was like so friggin' notable!" can be deleted per CSD A1 because it gives no context about the subject.

Don't get me wrong, I'm glad the page was deleted, but it seems you violated protocol by flagging it the way you did. I just had a similiar issue on an article I had flagged.Alan.ca 19:13, 8 December 2006 (UTC)

I didn't delete it, I userfied it to user:Barbbiggs. Guy (Help!) 19:14, 8 December 2006 (UTC)

Wiki Con Artist on deletion review[edit]

An editor has asked for a deletion review of Wiki Con Artist. Since you closed the deletion discussion for (or speedy-deleted) this article, you might want to participate in the deletion review. Note that "An editor" means me, but the template takes no account of that. -Amarkov blahedits 22:50, 8 December 2006 (UTC)

more on ArbCom elections[edit]

Today at Wikipedia_talk:Arbitration_Committee_Elections_December_2006/Vote#Expansion Jimbo Wales suggested that those who were over 50%, but had dropped out, might consider jumping back in. He thinks ArbCom may be expanding.

I am relatively new to this place, and was using the required background reading for these elections as a sort of education by fire. I thought you were aggressive as an admin, but that you were taking on tough tasks. I was still thinking when you dropped out, but leaning towards supporting you.

I understood you dropping out, since you were hovering below 60%. But in light of this hint of expansion of we-don't-know-what size, maybe you want to reconsider? Certainly standing for election is a service to the community in and of itself. Almost every candidate has generated some discussion of value. And while in the end only a few will be chosen, most will still have accomplished something positive. Would you be willing to return the decision to the community? Jd2718 23:29, 8 December 2006 (UTC)

  • Interesting question. The real issue here, is, can I resist wrestling with trolls? And if I think I can, does the community agree? Hmmm.
The question is, are we going to be short of active arbs? Past experience shows that I am pretty active, and I don't see me being MONGOed because in the end I usually (with a small number of exceptions) manage to walk away. I don't care that much what other people think of me. I am still concerned about the frivolous objection from ATren, based on a misunderstanding of my role in a content dispute in which I have not been more than trivially active for ages. If people are genuinely prepared to take the word of someone who was, then at least, a single-issue contributor, against an me, an admin and wide-ranging contributor, to the extent that they would seriously believe I would fail to recuse in an ArbCom case where I was conflicted in some way, or if they think my enjoyment of pro-cyclist agit-prop would overwhelm my critical judgement to the extent that ATren states ()even ignoring my well-known liking for all forms of non-motor transportation), then I have profound reservations about reopening my candidacy. Was anyone ever in doubt as to the fact that I am an argumentative sod? I do hope not.
The last thing anyone needs is for ArbCom to have people on it who have less than resounding support from the community, excluding malcontents with an agenda like Sugaar. I am mainly concerned here about the presence in the Oppose list of editors whose judgement I think is much better than mine. Guy (Help!) 17:46, 9 December 2006 (UTC)
Perhaps you should answer why (1) you yourself called it a mediation back then (I have the diff) even though you now say it wasn't and (2) you threatened to lock the article based on a misreading of a single word - it's been 8 months and you still refuse to acknowledge that error. You claim in your candidate statement to be constantly asking yourself if you did the right thing, yet here, in actual practice, you refuse to acknowledge an obvious mistake on your part, a mistake that led you to threaten to block an article, thereby inflaming an already hostile dispute into an all-out war. Not to mention your cavalier attitude about telling people to "fuck off", and calling another editor an "idiot".
Perhaps if you addressed these issues in an honest and forthcoming way (rather than skirting the issue by insinuating that my word is less valid because I'm a supposed "single-issue contributor" - a fact that should be wholly irrelevant) then some of those 50-odd editors who voted against you would be more likely to support you. ATren 18:02, 9 December 2006 (UTC)
Perhaps you should ask yourself why you are so ridiculously obsessed with a long-ago content dispute in which you have steadfastly refused to admit to any bias in yourself. Now go away and stop trolling, please. Guy (Help!) 18:04, 9 December 2006 (UTC)
When you bring my name up, I will respond, simple as that. And stop calling me a troll. ATren 19:54, 9 December 2006 (UTC)
Sure, just as soon as you stop trolling. Guy (Help!) 22:53, 9 December 2006 (UTC)
And your response to my two points above? Conspicuously absent. Again. Am I a troll because I refuse to accept your evasive responses to my questions? Are the dozens of editors who voted against you (many after examining my indisputable evidence) also trolls?
Have you ever considered why you seem so susceptible to trolls? Maybe it's a self-fulfilling prophesy: you are so quick to flip the "troll" bit that you frequently drive otherwise good-faith editors to troll-like behavior just to defend themselves. ATren 02:20, 10 December 2006 (UTC)
My response to your two pointlesses above has been given more times than I can recall. The fact that you don't like the answer is your problem, not mine. You have two options: escalate it or drop it. I am through arguing with you about this months-old whine of yours. Go away. Guy (Help!) 10:03, 10 December 2006 (UTC)
Escalation would be necessary if I believed you should be de-sysopped, which I don't (though there was a time I did - but I've since reconsidered). So I don't feel the need to escalate. However, when you insinuate that you are considering reviving your candidacy, then I will once again demand answers to the questions you never answered (like the issues raised above). It comes down to this: I believe you would make a very poor arbitrator, for all the reasons outlined on the candidacy talk page. People admire you for your admin skills, your intolerance to Wikipedia abuses, and your tireless efforts to improve the encyclopedia, but most of them have never been exposed to you in the context of mediation or dispute resolution - and these are the qualities that are most important for a judicial position like arb com. I, on the other hand, have experienced your mediation (yes JzG, it was a mediation - check the diffs I presented on your voting talk page) and it is that experience (which can best be described as exasperating for all involved) that compells me to vigorously oppose your candidacy for arb com. If this makes me a troll, then so be it - you too are free to escalate if you feel I am trolling. ATren 15:33, 10 December 2006 (UTC)
People are weird with their votes. Some are voting no on candidates who will exceed 50%, just to make a point (without a link, Fred Bauder says something to that effect on his talk page about his oppose for Paul August). But every "oppose" raises questions. Look, every "support" should raise issues, too, and there was more support than oppose. And once chosen, it's the conduct on the committee that matters, not any of the discussion that came before. I know the negative votes can sting, but like I wrote before, just standing for this election (or approval process is really the better name for it) anyway, just standing for this process, if you can bear the negative stuff, just standing is a service. Jd2718 18:13, 9 December 2006 (UTC)

Adminship - your comment[edit]

Thanks for your comment on my talk page. But we'd better be careful after this. :) Any idea who the poster might be? Newyorkbrad 18:50, 9 December 2006 (UTC)

  • Oh, it will be one of the usual suspects I expect. Guy (Help!) 23:08, 9 December 2006 (UTC)

Operation CWAL[edit]

Thought you might be interested in seeing this: http://www.ghazporkindustrial.com/?P=maggottshow Scott 110 03:19, 10 December 2006 (UTC)

  • Already seen it, thanks. Incidentally, please don't link attack sites, this is considered a Really Bad Thing. Yet another of those rules nobody tells you about until you've broken them :-) Guy (Help!) 09:47, 10 December 2006 (UTC)

On Original Research.[edit]

This is in response to your comment at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Apprentice (software), where you claimed that the article was "original research." Since I wrote a fair amount of the article, I figured that was worthy of a response. I believe that either this claim is mistaken or else you are using a far broader umbrella for the term "original research" than I do.

There's a difference between original research and, for lack of a better term, "uncommon knowledge." The vast majority of content on Wikipedia is loosely referenced at best, and that's okay, for now. For many non-contentious topics, it's more important for the content to be laid out rather than for all the forms to be in order, and for some topics, references are hard to come by. Just because someone did not have the book on the spread of Buddhism into China that they read in college handy doesn't mean that their addition on the subject is "original research;" it's just uncited, that's all. And being unreferenced is considerably less of a problem than OR; OR is generally inappropriate no matter what, while unreferenced can be fixed with a cite request. While telling the difference can be tricky if the contributor does not reveal the source, I think that the Assume Good Faith guideline means that you should not accuse someone of OR unless it's fairly clear (for instance, "sales of the Widget2000 are listed as 30,000 units" with an edited addition of "but store clerks in some areas have reported that they're actually selling far faster than that." Or look at the talk page of Fraulein, where someone keeps on quoting personal anecdotes as evidence rather than cites.)

The Apprentice article may have been loosely cited, like most articles, but it was not OR. It couldn't have been, since as noted in the deletion debate, I myself did not play it, never logged onto a league or IRC chatroom dedicated to it, and was not part of its "scene" during its heyday. Everything I know about it was picked up by osmosis and reading secondary sources (as the primary had long since gone under) about its importance within the MtG community. The "research" I did was no different than going into a library to look up magazine articles and books for cites, something Wikipedia theoretically approves of. I made the article at all on something I don't play mostly as a labor of trying to do something good for Wikipedia, as a new user was adding extraneous details to the main M:TG article. See Talk:Magic:_The_Gathering#Apprentice_and_Magic_Workstation and later posts if you're curious; I tried to show the proper way to go about it and made the article.

Anyway. If you still feel this is somehow Original Research, then I'd be interested to hear why. SnowFire 23:55, 5 December 2006 (UTC)

If it's not original research then it should be trivially easy to cite the multiple non-trivial coverage in reliable secondary sources independent of the subject from which it is drawn. Do that and you have fixed the problem. Other articles are completely irrelevant, I'm sure that a significant porportion of WP articles should be nuked or reworked, but we take them one at a time. Guy (Help!) 00:01, 6 December 2006 (UTC)
No, that's cause for an unreferenced tag (if references are not easy to come by), or a deletion based on a verifiability or notability argument (if the references are not reliable or are trivial- the rationale given by the others in favor of deletion in the thread, I'll add). That is quite separate from original research. I'm not saying that uncited facts are optimal, but there's a difference between facts that can be reliably cited but aren't yet, and unpublished material that can't be reliably cited. If something is truly a "novel narrative or historical interpretation," there won't be any possible cites for it (for instance, how telepathy is proved by my own amazing ability to read minds, or information gathered from claimed personal interviews, classic examples of OR. It's obvious that kind of stuff is unpublished.).
As for it being "trivially easy" to cite non-OR... clearly we are spoiled by Google. I don't know how to respond to this aside from saying it is false. Just from personal experience, I'm not at college anymore, but while I was, I read some fairly obscure books at the library- academic journals that are not available free online, books from 1900 and earlier, and so on. It would not be "trivially easy" to go back and cite them properly, but they are valid sources, and I would hope that a hypothetical article on a notable subject based on them would not be deleted simply due to the "proof" that it was not OR not coming within an arbitrary 5-day time limit. (Incidentally, in this case, citing it was certainly possible, though annoying due to the generic name and the mists of time eating some websites. I have actually gone back and added more cites thanks to Google, but even if I hadn't, I'd say that the article should have been kept and sent to cleanup instead.)
As for "other articles," I did not invoke a standard "but look at this article that barely skated past AfD!" comparison, you'll note. I only said that the vast majority of Wikipedia is unreferenced and that that is okay. I'm going to assume you're not in favor of deleting 95% of Wikipedia? AfD is not cleanup. Unreferenced articles are often better than no articles, and can be improved over time, including adding cites. SnowFire 03:01, 6 December 2006 (UTC)
That's your view, mine is that if it is not referenced before the end of the AfD then it should go, per policy. So should other unreferenced articles. That is policy. You are free to fix the problem and thus save the article. Guy (Help!) 07:31, 6 December 2006 (UTC)
Then just say that and cite WP:V. I am taking exception to the added rationale of original research, as unreferenced is not equivalent to OR.
I wasn't here to change your opinion- you'll note that I didn't spam the talk pages of other delete voters- but rather to address what I see as a factual inaccuracy, as the page was not original research even in its earlier, uncited form. SnowFire 15:39, 6 December 2006 (UTC)
That which is not verifiable from reliable sources, is original research (i.e. novel synthesis form primary sources). But none of that is especially relevant; if you can cite good quality critical reviews from reliable secondary sources which support the content, then there is no problem. Incidentally, the sources you have go some way towards this, but in my view we could do with linking specific parts of the text to the sources, and hopefully finding sources outside the MTG community as well, to avoid appearances of a walled garden. Guy (Help!) 16:06, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

I'd agree that when notability is in question, more sources from the "outside" is a good indicator of notability, although in my opinion not a required one. However, my hopes are not high for finding non-MTG community articles on Apprentice, just as I wouldn't expect there to be much written (worth citing, at least) on the King's Indian Defence outside of the chess community. (Edit: Never mind. This apparently sent the wrong message. Note: If you have a higher standard for inclusion than the de facto WP standard and wouldn't mind deleting both, that's perfectly understandable since WP effectively has very liberal inclusion policies, as I'm sure you know. I happen to think that subtopics of notable topics are probably notable if the topic is large and relevant enough.) Some of the other posters said they saw it in a magazine, and I found websites of, say, Harry Potter CCG players who'd made data sets for Apprentice with the HP card game, but the magazine cites will probably only come with time, not before the AfD finishes, and the general CCG references aren't really that far afield.

As for the OR deal, I think we may be going in circles, so I'll try and leave it at this. We may actually already agree, it's just that I feel that the distinction between unreferenced(tag), unverifiable (delete by WP:V), and original research is significant and misclassifying even unverifiable information (Which will be deleted anyway) isn't good and will create bad blood. I noticed that in a recent DfR you voted in (Wikipedia:Deletion_review#Starfleet_alternate_ranks_and_insignia), a user made the comment "having sources is not magical pixie dust that stops original research being original research," because even if the sources are reliable, the way they're used may be a novel synthesis. On the flip side, if a vandal removed all the references from a featured article and somehow blew away the database history, the article wouldn't suddenly be OR, even lacking references. SnowFire 04:44, 8 December 2006 (UTC)

  • The above assumes that MTG is on a par with chess (which it isn't) and that published works from mainstream publishers, available for chess, are on a par with the MTG fansites and forums used as sources for the MTG article (which is also false). Things which will "come with time" equate to crystal balling. Guy (Help!) 07:27, 8 December 2006 (UTC)
Just so you know, I have an angry post written up all nicely dismantling what you just said, but I think I'll hold off on it. I'll just say this: you grossly misinterpreted what I was saying in that parenthetical note (That, or you were intentionally trolling), but that note was a sideline to my main thread anyway, so I'd prefer to attempt to kill it now rather than get into a flamewar over whether I phrased my point correctly. My meaning was nothing like what you were rebutting- of course chess is more important than MTG and that chess has many, many more sources; that's obvious, so I left it off. My actual point was on the occasional impossibility of avoiding the "walled garden" problem with sources; this was not intended to be a holistic comparison.
To get back onto point. As for things that will "come with time," well, that's a pretty fundamental tenent to the way Wikipedia works. Most articles get better and have better sources over time; taking into account the long-term of Wikipedia is hardly irrelevant. I'll grant that the claim in the article was fairly weak ("A magazine somewhere") and not worthy of too much weight, though. You said previously that "linking specific parts of the text to the sources" would be good. I'm a little confused by this- do you mean inline citations? (They already are inline.) Or using the quote field on the cite-webs more? SnowFire 21:19, 9 December 2006 (UTC)
Well now. You will be aware, I expect, of the assertions of "if you delete Bloggs Computers then you might as well delete IBM"? I do not like false analogies. Feel free to use a more accurate analogy. The sources added all appear to be self-editable. If that is not the case, what is their editorial policy? Guy (Help!) 23:07, 9 December 2006 (UTC)
Yes, except that is not what I was saying. If for some reason IBM was only covered only in the computing press, it would still be notable. Thus, the mere fact that Bloggs Computers is also only covered in the computing press is not, by itself, sufficient cause for deletion. Obviously this is false in the case of IBM, but it's true of lots of other topics even more notable than chess- I was originally going to use an obscure geology topic, actually. Heck, the sources guideline says to beware citing things like newspapers or the popular press for science topics even when they are mentioned there, and no one disputes their notability. The notability guideline in such cases, to my mind, is a balance- the more important the mother topic and the more crucial the daughter topic, the better the argument for notability, so major subtopics of minor articles might well be worth an article, as are minutiae to things like physics or football/soccer.
None of the sources given are self-editable, by the way. The quality of random articles at starcitygames (which got the most cites) can be somewhat erratic due to the fact that theoretically anyone can submit an article, although in reality the vast majority of articles are from established columnists. None of the cites I used are from random contributors, I believe; notably, one of the articles I cited twice actually came from the editor of the site. SnowFire 23:48, 9 December 2006 (UTC)
Oh for heaven's sake. Look, we have enormous numbers of crufty articles on trivial software, OK? They come up every day. In alm ost every case, they are unsourced, or sourced only from the game's website. That is, they are almost certainly original research. So, to a good first approximation, an unsourced article about a piece of software with appeal only to a certain gaming community is likely OR. I'm glad you added sources to fix that, except that the sources don't, to my inexpert eye (I am no MTG player) appear to substantiate much of the content; but we'll assume good faith and allow that the content is now sourced. But I am not convinced of the quality of those sources. What I'm looking for, as always, is evidence that the software has been the primary subject of multiple non-trivial coverage in reliable secondary sources independent of the subject. If people would care to cite the magazine reviews they "seem to remember" that would help a lot. Guy (Help!) 23:56, 9 December 2006 (UTC)
I agree that more citing and notice would certainly be nice, but it won't be coming from me since I don't subscribe to the (generally worthless anyway) gaming press. And if you have a more aggressive deletion policy than mine, then more power to you.
Like I said long ago, I wasn't here to change your mind or even your vote on this article, and to the extent that this conversation covered that, it was sidetracked. The sole reason I popped up here was to find out if you thought that the article had been made with OR, or if your definition of OR was super-broad, since that would be a Wikipedia-wide type thing. I will tentatively hope that it was the first, and I will grant that looking back on the old article now, one section does stink of OR (the part I commented out, and that was also not written by me). SnowFire 00:27, 10 December 2006 (UTC)
All completely reasonable. I think this was simply a case of angry dolphins - or is it cross porpoises? Something like that. Extrapolation between the specific and the generic, anyway. I think we probably agree pretty much to the letter what actually constitutes OR, my main desire here is to use, wherever possible, canonical policy rather than guidelines in deletion debates. Guidelines are about enforcing policy, and failing a guideline is a good rule of thumb indicating that policy has been violated in some way (e.g. a non-notable subject will usually, by definition, fail verifiability and not a directory), where one can finger the specific policy it's good to do so. Not all uncited pop culture articles are OR. Only most of them :-) Guy (Help!) 16:38, 10 December 2006 (UTC)

Question[edit]

Thank you for commenting at my RfC; I see you have endorsed Ghirla's statement 'from his perspective'. I do wonder what prevented you from endorsing my reply 'from my perspective'? I'd very much appreciate an explanation why his statement seems to you more reliable then my reply (how can I learn if I don't understand...). Thank you, -- Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | talk  17:28, 8 December 2006 (UTC)

First, I've only got partway down the thing. Second, Ghirla's perspective is important in that it defines what is likely to happen to poeple attempting to correct bias in articles "owned" by a particular group of editors. Since neither of you are children, you should have settled your differences long ago, I don't thin k you (either of you) are working towards that even now. Guy (Help!) 17:39, 8 December 2006 (UTC)
As far as settling bias goes, do note that there is reasonable bias and unreasonable. Close to 20 of my articles has been featured (thus deemed apparently neutral and unbiased by the community, and supported during FAC nominations by Russian editors too, including the controversial cases like Katyn massacre, Polish-Soviet War or History of Solidarity. There is a big difference between good collaboration between Polish, Russian and others editors, which resulted in FACing those articles, and unconstructive (to say the least) comments such as this or this, voiced by a small but very vocal minority of users who support fringe, often revisionist POVs (ex: [21]). The problem is that editors like myself create valuable content, and Ghirla insterts his very strong POV and calls us trolls, vandals, nationalists and so on when we attempt to build a consensus on some middle ground (which we eventually do, with the help of various modarate editors, as the FAs show); and when we much more midly criticize him he cries that he is offended (example) and that there is a (sic!) 'anti-Ghirla crusade' or Ghirlaphobia'; just look at Wikipedia talk:Requests for comment/Piotrus where he again engages in ad hominem attacks, calling Lástocska a Russophobe, since she dared to criticize him... I'd dearly love to settle this conflict. I made many gestures of good will, such as refusing to support an ArbCom againt Ghirla few months ago and declaring that 'I have no beef with him' (this was noted by other editors). As for his reply - well, the RfC sais it all, I believe. If you have any idea how I can solve this conflict other then leaving Wikipedia, do let me know.-- Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | talk  18:50, 8 December 2006 (UTC)
This message is what the RFC is about. Piotrus, please look at your contributions and estimate how much of them are "requests for input", "Ghirlandajo said... so I search for your opinion", "I know that you have had conflicts with Ghirla, so please comments on his latest outburst...", "thanks for reporting on Ghirla's actions", etc, etc. I don't how others feel in such situations, but I regards such actions as objectionable and incivil. How many Russian editors did you ask to comment? I suspect that zero. Can you name a single instance when I acted this way? --Ghirla -трёп- 17:10, 9 December 2006 (UTC)
Well yes. Here we have two apparently excellent editors, both working on sections of the project which do not attract much activity (perhaps we need a Balkan Pokemon?) but who appear to be rehashing last century's disputes. Ghirla, you are not blameless (you know you are not) but Piotrus, you are acting like my kids! "Mum, Mum, look what Michael did!" You really do need to meet up in RL or a neutral forum or something and just learn to like each other, or at least to allow your mutual distrust not to dominate your interactions. Yeah, yeah, I'm a fine one to talk :-) Guy (Help!) 17:51, 9 December 2006 (UTC)
Wow, you really have an inspiring effect on me. I fail to see how an experienced editor could so perfectly misunderstand the problem, but since two editors I respect (you and mikka) seem to share this view, I posted a loooong reply to your concerns (and some others) on talk. If this doesn't clarify the issue, I really don't know what can.-- Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | talk  21:43, 8 December 2006 (UTC)
I think the problem is that you are personalising things too much. But I am still too busy to go back and finish reading the rest yet, I have two concerts to sing in tomorrow and I'm between pieces rehearsing. Guy (Help!) 21:48, 8 December 2006 (UTC)
I have now read more, commented on some and sent you an email. Hopefully that will do for now. Guy (Help!) 16:36, 10 December 2006 (UTC)

ZOMG ROGUE ADMIN ABUSE![edit]

You better not have been using feelings of an almost human nature. That will not do. Will (Tell me, is something eluding you, Sunshine?) 18:30, 10 December 2006 (UTC)

  • The way I make them suffer.... no, let's not go there :-) Guy (Help!) 18:42, 10 December 2006 (UTC)

your note[edit]

Hi Jay - I'm not sure which text you're talking about of mine that needs work - you posted your note under the heading "Megan Marshck", but I haven't edited that page. So could you be more specific? Thank youTvoz 18:59, 10 December 2006 (UTC)

  • As if you didn't know. Guy (Help!) 19:24, 10 December 2006 (UTC)
Uh, first, sorry, I meant Guy not Jay. And second, you posted your note on my talk page under the Marshack heading where a separate article about her that I didn't edit was being discussed, so, yeah, I didn't know which text you meant. I'm editing lots of articles in addition to Rockefeller. I asked you politely to clarify, so thank you for clarifying. As for your advice, I followed bold-revert-talk - the problem is that the editor who made 6 reverts in a day to the text would not. The text in that section could indeed stand expansion, but I was trying to come up with the fourth point that you left out - consensus - by posting something that communicated what I think must be communicated, but was carefully worded and referenced so as to perhaps last more than five minutes on the page. So, if you have something to suggest about the specifics, I'm all ears. But I was not playing games with my question above to you, so you didn't need to respond as if I was. Tvoz 19:38, 10 December 2006 (UTC)

EDIT: correction again, you did mention consensus. That's what I was trying to do, if you'll go back and read the history and the talk page. Tvoz 19:42, 10 December 2006 (UTC)

  • It's all one subject. I don't think she is notable, I think that there should be a redirect or even delete the article, but you need to go and engage on Talk, with the mediation on Nelson Rockefeller, not just edit-war. The way to deal with issues of supposed bias and POV is to talk about them, see what the broader consensus is, work on the text. Guy (Help!) 19:52, 10 December 2006 (UTC)
Right. To be clear, I am talking about the Rockefeller page only. I haven't commented yet about whether I think Marshack should have her own page or not. And if you would look at the Rockefeller edit history and at the talk page you would see that many attempts were made to avoid edit warring, to change the text to accommodate, and to try to reach consensus. This was an out of control editor (read his talk page too, I might suggest) who apparently has a history of removing comments and references wholesale, with specious accusations, rather than trying to reach consensus. Read my comments on Rockefeller, please. The now-blocked editor was unwilling to be engaged. That is why I am glad about the offer of mediation. Tvoz 21:18, 10 December 2006 (UTC)
Yes, I understand that. The point is, there are legitimate questions about the edit. A mediator is there, they will help with that. I don't see any problem putting the facts in there, duly sourced and attributed, but I am not going to have time to think long and hard about the specifics, whereas the mediator will. Please do just accept all this at face value. The person who removed it will be dealt with separately, and I have no reason to believe this will impact on the situation. A second pair of eyes on the text will be good, so go with the flow, polish up the tone and work on making the encyclopaedia better, which is what you appear to be doing. This really is no big deal, I was just saying not to get too upset about the whole thing. Guy (Help!) 23:18, 10 December 2006 (UTC)

MinervaSimpson[edit]

Although you've already blocked the account, I'm wondering if I should still file a checkuser on him (or if that's unnecessary if he's been blocked indef.} -WarthogDemon 19:05, 10 December 2006 (UTC)

  • Maybe worth it if you feel the puppeteer is still active and causing trouble, but CheckUser is not for fishing so you'd need to identify the account. Guy (Help!) 19:23, 10 December 2006 (UTC)
Understood. I'm 99.9% positive of who it is, so I'll file one. Thanks. -WarthogDemon 19:25, 10 December 2006 (UTC)
Question. Should I put the Checkfile Case under code B or F? -WarthogDemon 19:31, 10 December 2006 (UTC)
Depends on whether the main account is currently blocked. Guy (Help!) 19:58, 10 December 2006 (UTC)
It is blocked for reasons of trolling. -WarthogDemon 19:59, 10 December 2006 (UTC)
Code F. Guy (Help!) 20:16, 10 December 2006 (UTC)

Note on AFD[edit]

You voted to delete on Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/The Mischief Makers. I don't know the specifics of this page, but the nominator was indefinitely blocked; the account first edited yesterday and his only purpose was to nominate articles edited by WietsE for deletion. I speedy kept the other AFDs, but did not for this one because of delete "votes". I have no opinion, but because of the nominator, you may wish to look into this debate further. Ral315 (talk) 01:58, 11 December 2006 (UTC)

No Personal Attacks[edit]

With regards to your comments on Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents: Please see Wikipedia's no personal attacks policy. Comment on content, not on contributors; personal attacks damage the community and deter users. Note that continued personal attacks may lead to blocks for disruption. Please stay cool and keep this in mind while editing. Thank you. Fys. &#147;Ta fys aym&#148;. 16:08, 18 December 2006 (UTC)

Removing warning templates[edit]

Stop-hand-caution.png

You have removed several user warning templates from your user or user talk page. This is a bad idea. These warnings are not put on your talk page to annoy you; they are put here because other editors think that your behavior needs improvement, and we're giving you the courtesy of letting you know. Please respond by changing your behavior, and please stop removing the warnings. Thank you. Fys. &#147;Ta fys aym&#148;. 16:17, 18 December 2006 (UTC)

J E ANderson nom on AfD[edit]

SOunds like a good idea. My only concern is that after Avidor's start, I made well over a dozen edits, making ME appear to be the 'other side' inthe 'debate' about PLRT or whatever alphabet soup it is. I'm NOT. I found it through AN/I, and jsut wanted to fix an article. anyways, i'm voting for delete anyways. ThuranX 19:27, 10 December 2006 (UTC)

  • OK. It's politically polarised with a long history of fights here and outside. Obviously we agree: we can do without the hassle :-) Guy (Help!) 19:56, 10 December 2006 (UTC)
  • It might be good to also delete the other two "bios of living persons" that were created by this person. Your call. Bob 19:21, 11 December 2006 (UTC)

Proposed merge[edit]

Hey Guy, User:Davidbspalding has suggested that WP:TIND and WP:CHILL should be merged. I personally don't see the need, as while the essays are similar in message they were written in different tones and this would be lost in a merge. Linking between the two is probably enough. Would be great to hear your thoughts on this. Deizio talk 01:11, 12 December 2006 (UTC)

  • Don't mind either way, what's important is the message: it will all be fixed before the deadline, because there isn't one. Guy (Help!) 01:23, 12 December 2006 (UTC)

Keller Williams Realty[edit]

Hey JzG, just wanted to bring something to your attention concerning the article Keller Williams Realty. I noticed you deleted it a couple of days ago as a CSD G11, and I just deleted a newer version of the article which was completely insane (the version you deleted at least looked like a reasonable article, although could have been G11 as well). The reason I ask is when checking links I ran across the following AfDs: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Gary Keller Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Joe Williams (real estate) and at least some users seem to think that this is a worthy article and that maybe the old version might be legit. Anyway, just wanted to let you know, thanks! --- Deville (Talk) 03:33, 12 December 2006 (UTC)

  • It's been deleted twice by different admins as spam, you are more than welcome to write a much better article which is not spam :-) Guy (Help!) 19:20, 12 December 2006 (UTC)

Blocking[edit]

Covertly stating that I will be blocked will not stop me from voicing my opinion about Morwen's baseless accusation that I threatened her and she is in fear of her life. It is a ridiculous accusation and it is also interesting that all the people who had issues with me on the Star Trek AfDs are now coming to Morwen's defense on this. I will not give in to bullying, you can be assured. -Husnock 14:22, 13 December 2006 (UTC)

  • Oh do give up. You made a comment which Morwen found intimidating. You can either accept that or you can continue to escalate the dispute, but you can't deny that Morwen found it threatening, or that her basis for doing so was valid as assessed by multiplpe neutral third parties. Your behaviour is becoming disruptive. Guy (Help!) 14:25, 13 December 2006 (UTC)

User:JzG/ATren[edit]

For goodness sake, let it go. Please, Guy, think about deleting this subpage and moving on. It looks to an neutral like you're trying very hard to bait this guy into doing something more than he's done so he'll be blocked. Proto:: 09:59, 20 December 2006 (UTC)

  • Not my intention at all. What I want is to leave it one place, and then forget about it for ever after. I don't mind him stating his case, as long as I get to state mine, and everyone gets to make up their own mind, that's fine, but I have absolutely no intention of spending the rest of my Wikilife going over the same months-old dispute. So. It can stay there, just like User:JzG/Fisheaters, another one where the disputant seemed to want to go over and over the same ground, so I can get on with doing what I do. Am I on the wrong track here? Guy (Help!) 11:01, 20 December 2006 (UTC)
    • Well, it's better than continually bitching at each other on AN and other people's talk pages, but not as good as just ignore the whole thing and letting it go. So, it's an improvement. I hope that every time he tries to irritate you in future that we're not going to see this link posted in response, rather than you just ignoring him completely, which would be best. Proto:: 12:25, 20 December 2006 (UTC)
  • Ignoring trolling is my new year's resolution :-) Guy (Help!) 12:36, 20 December 2006 (UTC)
Proto: I would like to point out that JzG started the threads on AN/I and MONGO's talk page, not to mention JzG/ATren. In the vast majority of cases, he starts it and I respond in defense. Please do not imply otherwise.
Furthermore, I would like to re-post the comment that Fys added 3 times here (and which JzG reverted each time):
"You may wish to examine why it is that disputes you have been involved in always seem to (a) get personal, (b) turn into longrunning personal grudges (usually by mutual consent). I think you lack the temperament and approach which is successful in solving disputes. Offered as a constructive comment. And it's you deleting comments like this as "trolling" that's the major part of the problem."
Now, regardless of your dispute with Fys (and I am in no way endorsing Fys's prior actions, because know nothing about that dispute) he is dead on here. You are so quick to assume bad faith on the part of others that it becomes a self-fulfilling prophecy: even good faith editors become so-called "trolls" in exasperation. It's not just me and Fys, either. Skybum [22] and Fresheneesz [23] (both of whom have impeccable records of good faith editing) have also expressed frustration at your approach. And those are just the ones I know about. The fact is, you are troll bait for the simple reason that your methods create trolls out of good editors.
Now, you can take this as just more "trolling" and delete it as such, or you can take it as constructive criticism. But did it ever occur to you why you seem so susceptible to this kind of thing, that maybe if you took off the troll-colored glasses you would find that we are just casual editors who are just extremely frustrated with your demeaning approach? ATren 15:14, 20 December 2006 (UTC)
ATren, back in April you were a single-purpose account who (then and now) refused to acknowledge that you had any bias whatsoever. Avidor's bias was openly declared, easily discounted, and he rarely edited the article. You, on the other hand, refused to acknowledge any bias, and edited like crazy, then as now. Your relentless self-justification does not change that. I have never made any secret of being an opinionated, argumentative bastard, but I don't think I have any preconceived biases on the subject of PRT - as a long-term fan of alternatives to car transport, as evidenced by my daily transportation choices, and as an electrical engineer, it is not clear to me what my bias is supposed to be, especially since I was not involved in the original edit war. Any admin will know exactly what your editing pattern looked like from the outside - you, by definition, cannot know that, just as you won't necessarily see how your continued beating of that particular long-dead horse looks to me or anyone else. You expect me to accept the judgement of people like you and Fys on my behaviour? Sorry, you're on to a loser. Try leaving that job to people who have not chosen to attack me while obdurately denying the remotest possibility of any problems with their own behaviour. Now, I suggest we summarise our views on the page above, and leave it at that. Please be absolutely assured that I am not in the least bit interested in your interpretation of my actions, then or now. I do not trust your opinion on my own actions, any more than I trust mine, and for the same reasons. Leave it to people whose opinion I do trust and am interested in hearing, OK? Guy (Help!) 15:47, 20 December 2006 (UTC)
Please do not remove my comment, unless you want to remove the entire thread. If you are going to continue this discussion, then I have a right to respond.
I did not "edit like crazy" - most of my edits were on the talk page trying to come to agreement what should be in the article. Stop lying.
Also, I'm restoring this paragraph that you removed:
From WP:SPA: "For this reason, some editors give the opinion of single purpose accounts lesser weight in discussions on policy and deletion. Users are cautioned to assume good faith, and to recall that all new users must start off somewhere... There is, of course, nothing wrong with single purpose accounts." If you want to assume bad faith on my part because I hadn't edited other articles, that's your problem. Or not - you don't seem to have a problem trampling all over WP:AGF on a regular basis. ATren 16:09, 20 December 2006 (UTC)
ATren 16:16, 20 December 2006 (UTC)
I did not remove your comment, I reverted your editing of my comment above my signature [24]. The rollback apparently caught a subsequent edit as well. But like I said, there is absolutely nothing new to say here so I think we should both stop wasting bandwidth on it. WP:AGF is like m:DICK, you are supposed to abide by it, not cite it, citing it tends to be recursive. The fact that you choose to characterise any differing interpretation as "lying" - oh fuck it I can't be bothered arguing with you any more. This goes in the archive in about ten minutes. Guy (Help!) 16:26, 20 December 2006 (UTC)

Speedy delete of The Adventures of Fatman[edit]

The article was speedily deleted for being non-notable, but if I'd ahd the chance I'd have added the 8 non-trivial articles (reviews) of the game that can easily be found at: http://www.google.co.uk/search?q=adventures%20of%20fatman%20review

Please can you reinstate the page and let us have a proper notability debate?

  • I don't see how a website HAVING forums precludes it from being reliable. It doesn't mean that the articles are written by forum people. If you can let me see the deleted Fatman page (stick it on my user page if you like) then I can come up with a better version to get reinstated, notability references and all. --Amaccormack 22:29, 12 December 2006 (UTC)
  • -forums excludes a large number of forum posts, giving (in general) a better result in terms of actual unique hits. In general, it leaves the main site in the results. You don't need the deleted version, it was really not worth the effort of restoring. Guy (Help!) 22:34, 12 December 2006 (UTC)
  • Well, in your example it didn't leave the main site, and my supposedly flawed search had good articles for the first 8 hits, which you apparently didn't even check. But anyway, after your refusal, I went and got the article from google's cache and improved it so that it has references and meets the WP:SOFTWARE notability requirements. You may wish to review it at The Adventures of Fatman. --Amaccormack 10:46, 13 December 2006 (UTC)
  • Much better. In what way does DIYgames qualify as a reliable source? Just curious. This is a genuine question, I want to establish what game sites are actually reliable, for various other reasons. Guy (Help!) 10:57, 13 December 2006 (UTC)
  • Great, glad you approve. I'm not sure that DIY games necessarily qualifies as a reliable source in terms of proving notability, etc. but I believe anyone interested in the game would want to know that it did get awards from what was a good source of adventure game reviews (they did try an play nearly EVERY amateur adventure game as they came out) until the main editor (not the adventure editor, Jozef Purdes who now carries on on his own blog and on gamesetwatch) gave up on the site and let its domain lapse, apparently. So DIYgames is now defunct, but it was respected in its day. --Amaccormack 08:41, 14 December 2006 (UTC)
  • The problem here is that the assertion of notability appears to rest primarily on the reputation of DIY Games, so it would be useful to know what that reputation is. Regardless of whether the subject is judged encyclopaedic or not, per WP:N, there is no possible doubt that this is a perfectly decent article and not a speedy candidate, so I'm inclined to give the benefit of the doubt :-) Guy (Help!) 11:04, 14 December 2006 (UTC)

MfD alert[edit]

Once again, one of your pages is up for nomination at MfD. Not sure whether anyone is bothering to notify creators of such things so I'm letting you know. Newyorkbrad 19:40, 13 December 2006 (UTC)

  • Apparently not - apart from you :-) Guy (Help!) 19:47, 13 December 2006 (UTC)

Ali Sina[edit]

The page is still a source to have increase google hit on ali sina. Why not that page is deleted? Even deletion review comes out as delete now. It should not be redirected to anywhere but deleted. --- ALM 14:01, 14 December 2006 (UTC)

  • You can take this to redirects for deletion if you like, but I think it's a valid redirect. Guy (Help!) 14:32, 14 December 2006 (UTC)

User:Docued[edit]

Hi, I noticed that you blocked User:Docued. (Perhaps you saw the note on WP:ANI?) I reviewed the user's contributions. The articles have lists of films that link to the documentary film company that employs the editor. I've prodded many of the articles, however, the degree of spamming causes me to ponder whether they meet speedy criteria for spamming. If not, do you think the external links to the company should be deleted? (A lot of work for prodded articles.) — ERcheck (talk) 12:59, 14 December 2006 (UTC)

  • It's more than likely that they do. One or two may be valid subjects, but we can probably wait for a neutral third party to create them. However, some good-faith contributors seem to believe that these may contribute to the coverage of something. Guy (Help!) 14:34, 14 December 2006 (UTC)
    • Just a note of caution: Not all of the links to DER were added by Docued. I probably added one or two myself at some point. While DER certainly sells and distributes films, as a nonprofit consortium of academics and filmmakers, they also provide film clips, scholarly papers and proceedings of meetings that would be useful to a reader seeking further info on visual anthropology. I don't know how strongly to interpret the rules against commercial links in this case, but some of those DER links go directly to non-catalog pages (such as the tribute to Jean Rouch). The Ax Fight page cited a PDF of a paper written by anthropologists that was hosted on the DER site (and written specifically for them, I believe). But if I'm entirely off-base here, let me know.--Media anthro 14:47, 14 December 2006 (UTC)
  • This is not disputed, but every one I've clicked thus far has off-the-page sales, and that is simply not on. Guy (Help!) 14:48, 14 December 2006 (UTC)

Regarding Robert Gardner: Gardner is definitely notable and very influential within anthropology. This article was in existence before Docued came along, so I didn't think to list it in response to your question. (two other articles to which Docued contributed, Jay Ruby and Jean Rouch, are also subjects notable in terms of filmmaking and publishing.))--Media anthro 16:18, 14 December 2006 (UTC)

  • OK, I left Ruby and Rouche because they had history, I'll undelete Gardner Guy (Help!) 18:32, 14 December 2006 (UTC)
  • Great, thank you.--Media anthro 19:40, 14 December 2006 (UTC)

Fixity of Species[edit]

Please go back, read the article that was deleted. Make a legitimate opinion on whether it should be deleted. Don't be ignorant on topics before you voice you opinions...that is the worst thing an admin can do.

You wrote:

Endorse deletion, new articles with "much better titles" are not a way of fixing consensus to delete. Guy (Help!) 18:45, 14 December 2006 (UTC)

Your previous opinion:

Endorse valid process, and with only 84 Googles I see no pressing reason to spend too much time agonising further over this. If someone wants to make it a redirect to creationism or something then that should be uncontroversial. Guy (Help!) 09:53, 10 December 2006 (UTC)

It appears to me that a "much better title" is exactly what is needed. If 84 ghits is not good enough then 14,700 ghits and 648 google books should be. Your reason for deletion is now completely negated. Please go back, read the article and come up with a legitimate reason why it should be delete other than "the other people say so" and if you can't find one...change you "endorsement". Pbarnes 19:49, 14 December 2006 (UTC)

  • Still creationism by another name, as the sources make clear. Guy (Help!) 19:53, 14 December 2006 (UTC)

DMWD[edit]

I'd been working from a copy from the local library. I'll have to check it back out again (could do with writing up a page on the Harvey Projector, for one!) and maybe have a hunt around for Nevil Shute's biography, which might have details on one or two of the projects. A category sounds like a good idea, though I'm not sure how populated it'd get – there seems to be something of a dearth of information about most of the projects outside of Pawle's book. GeeJo (t)(c) • 19:41, 14 December 2006 (UTC)

We seem to have quite a few of them, with Goodeve, Shute, Hedgehog, Squid, Panjandrum, Hajile and the like plus elements of Mulberry. A navbox would probably be better, though. I have Slide Rule and Pawle in boxes somewhere. I also have biographies of Barnes Wallis and Sidney Cotton, and a history of Handley Page I will work through when I get a round tuit :-) Guy (Help!) 19:51, 14 December 2006 (UTC)

Pacific Western University[edit]

Hi! Though they have not been accredited in the past, I just looked them up and they have a listing on the California regulatory site. Please take a look at the talk page. The recent edit you made may be in error regarding "any accrediting body." Thanks! Jokestress 22:17, 14 December 2006 (UTC)

E-mail[edit]

Hi. You might want to check your e-mail. --A. B. (talk) 23:12, 14 December 2006 (UTC)

You'll love this one.[edit]

Check out the first paragraph on User:Jonezy 10. -- Fan-1967 23:20, 14 December 2006 (UTC)

My post on another talk page[edit]

Hi. You may be able to help me with my request at post -- Jreferee 01:45, 15 December 2006 (UTC)

And mine please at Talk:Enviga#Suggest_we_delete_and_reorganise  :) Abtract 11:44, 15 December 2006 (UTC)

Pacific Western University[edit]

I'm puzzled: you've reintroduced the assertion that the institution is unaccredited without citing sources, even though you cited something from the New York Times in your post to the mailing list? --bainer (talk) 11:46, 15 December 2006 (UTC)

  • We can cite the NYT piece if necessary, but I think it much more likely that PWU will call the office if there is any link made whatsoever to content critical of the place; it could be sourced to CHEA though. Guy (Help!) 11:47, 15 December 2006 (UTC)

Hi JzG/Guy- I wrote an expansion of the Pacific Western University article that presently is on my computer. The information was based on reputable sources. The structure of my expanision is based on Wikiproject School. I reviewed all postings on the topic and believe my changes address all concerns. I would like to add my changes to the article. Please let me know how I can go about doing this. Thanks. -- Jreferee 14:02, 15 December 2006 (UTC)

  • The best way to approach this is probably line-by-line review on the Talk page. Guy (Help!) 14:12, 15 December 2006 (UTC)
  • I worked up a new version, which is based on verifiable data. I expanded the article from 237 words to 2,486 words (1,427 characters to 20,408 characters). My revision includes many of the existing lines but adds a significant amount of new material based on Wikiproject School guidelines. Posting my revisions on the talk page will overwhelm the talk page. My suggestion is to post my revisions at Pacific Western University and let others revise it as they see fit. Please let me know whether we can proceed this way. Thanks. -- Jreferee 14:35, 15 December 2006 (UTC)
  • The obvious solution is to make a sub-page at Talk:Pacific Western University/Proposed, put a tag at the top to say that it is work in progress and has not been assessed for neutrality or something. Guy (Help!) 15:25, 15 December 2006 (UTC)

Can you take a look?[edit]

Hello JzG,

The group you and another have tagged at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/AUFORN - Is in fact a private commercial company that sells magazines & books, see my post at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Lucasbfr#Could_be_a_vandal_at_work.3F

It looks as if Admin User_talk:Lucasbfr is not avaliable at this time to help, as the same ISP posted up links to the company and its owners etc at http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Australian_ufology&action=history

It look as if "Mantom555" is from the same company, all the inputs have the owners names all over them?

Thankyou & Best Regards TimMU 14:20, 15 December 2006 (UTC)

  • Why am I not surprised? Guy (Help!) 14:22, 15 December 2006 (UTC)

Would you like to do the honors?[edit]

Remember WP:ANI#Admin_plays_detective...what_next.3F? Well I've received two barnstars and the Sherlock Holmes Deductive Reasoning Award, but no one has gone ahead and banned User:AWilliamson. I've only banned one of his socks - creatively named User:Durova. - because it was an impersonation account. Since I've been involved in disputes with him, it would be more appropriate if someone else actually banned the main account. You were among the first to respond to the thread: would you like to? The only dissenting voice has been EReference, which Akhilleus and I both suspect is a sock. DurovaCharge! 22:33, 15 December 2006 (UTC)

Hi, Guy--in addition to the accounts you've already blocked, you may wish to take a look at the list of suspected socks at User:Highest-Authority-on-Joan-of-Arc-Related-Scholarship/AWilliamson sock puppets. Also, as Durova just mentioned, EReference warrants scrutiny--the discussion that we had on his user talk page is particularly interesting. --Akhilleus (talk) 02:36, 16 December 2006 (UTC)
Thank you for the help. DurovaCharge! 04:27, 16 December 2006 (UTC)


I want to bring up YTMND with you one last time[edit]

Sorry to do this, but I just want to straighten things out. I want to know exactly why we blacklisted YTMNDs. Frankly, Wikipedia is the only place in the entire world where the official position is anti-YTMND. If it's because of copyvios, why would news articles link to them? Also, this could have the wrong effect, and as you know, a sizeable number of Wikipedians think of all YTMNDers as vandals (which is most certainly not true). You yourself said the following on the spam blacklist:

  • (a) add YTMNDs to mainstream articles,
    • While this is true, in some cases such as the Picard and Finding Forrester articles, it should be okay. While in most cases it's wrong, we have to take into account the whole picture.
  • (b) create and link to YTMNDs which violate copyright
    • Frankly, this saying is a Wikipedia is supposed to hate YTMND because it violates copyright. I should probably mention that a lot of the sites are parodies and as such fall into Fair Use. Also, YTMNDers are much stricter than Wikipedians when it comes to source citation, believe it or not.
  • (c) abuse Wikipedia for viral marketing
    • Is there an example of this?
  • (d) create and link to attacks on Wikipedians.
    • I have not once seen a single site focused on a single Wikipedian. Most of the Wiki-related YTMNDs are vandalism sites which I am very admant about stopping.

Frankly, we don't want to be seen like this as a group. Look at some of my work on Wikipedia, and some work of some other YTMNDers on Wikipedia, and you'll see we're not all vandals. I really hate to bring this up with you, but I really appreciate you're taking time to think back on this. I have the same problems you do with many YTMNDers, but I just want to make sure you're not mad at the entire community. Sir Crazyswordsman 07:36, 16 December 2006 (UTC)

  • There are actually five reasons they were blacklisted.
  • They were repeatedly added to mainstream articles despite often having no actual relevance (whatever YTMNDers might think , the world in general does not care how many indifferent Flash animations are made about a subject). Sometimes this might rise above the level of profoundly irrelevant, but usually it did not. External links are there to support the content as additional sources, further reading and to link to sites which give more detail than would be appropriate in a Wikipedia article. YTMNDs almost without exception do none of the above.
  • They are generally rich media requiring an external player, per WP:EL links to avoid.
  • Offsite attacks, which are a zero-tolerance thing.
  • The viral marketing element (see "safety not guaranteed", scientology, numerous others).
  • A large number of them contain copyright violations - virtually all the soundtracks and most of the pictures are unfree with no stated copyright waiver from the originator (this is the clincher); this absolutely does not come under the "fair use parody" header, since it is not the soundtrack which is being parodied.
So, no element of malice, but three things which violate strong consensus on links (copyright, attacks and rich media) plus two things which are merely tedious (and an abuse of the project). The real question is, what YTMND links are proposed which would actually genuinely add to the project per WP:EL? Apart from the occasional "OMG LOL" junk I have seen nothing which would actually enhance an article. Even the scientology ones are unhelpful in that they have unclear copyright and no provable authority. Guy (Help!) 07:52, 16 December 2006 (UTC)

Input[edit]

In regards to the comment you made on this AfD Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/James_Kim_(timeline_of_death). Could you also stop by and give your opinion here Talk:James_Kim#Timeline.3F as we're having a consensus issue.--Crossmr 19:05, 13 December 2006 (UTC)

The consensus issue wasn't about 3RR, it was about the inclusion of the timeline in the article. Since you'd commented on the AfD as to its encyclopedic value I thought perhaps you could comment on its value within the main article.--Crossmr 21:15, 13 December 2006 (UTC)
I know, but I couldn't resist. Guy (Help!) 21:44, 13 December 2006 (UTC)
I don't mind your comment on 3RR, but the Timeline is the bigger issue on the article at the moment. Since you'd expressed an opinion elsewhere on it, I was hoping you could help further the discussion there. We need to form a much clearer consensus on whether or not its appropriate to the article.--Crossmr 21:48, 13 December 2006 (UTC)
Thoughts on resolving this? One of the editors just attempted to extend the timeline to over twice its existing size. It was not benefiting the article before that change.--Crossmr 06:56, 16 December 2006 (UTC)

Speaking with one of the editors who was for the timeline I went ahead last night and made an integration of the timeline with the narrative in a manner that allows for quickly see on what day things occurred. When you get a chance I would appreciate your input.--Crossmr 21:30, 16 December 2006 (UTC)

Category:California Bureau of Private Postsecondary and Vocational Education (BPPVE)[edit]

I was directed from WP:AN to you for assistance with an issue involving Pacific Western University. A user has apparently created a series of categories under Category:California Bureau of Private Postsecondary and Vocational Education (BPPVE) to give Pacific Western University the appearance of accreditation. The category tree has been nominated for deletion, and the debate surrounding the Pacific Western University article now continues at WP:CFD. Could you provide moderation or oversight over the debate (or at least comment on the category) at WP:CFD? Thank you, Dr. Submillimeter 18:55, 16 December 2006 (UTC)

PWU figures[edit]

Did you just unilaterally erase the bios and article histories of key Pacific Western University personnel Ronald Detrick and Steven Warfield? I just spent the better part of a day writing those to support the PWU article. Jokestress 21:35, 16 December 2006 (UTC)

Precisely. You wrote them to support the PWU article. We do have one or two articles on the people who run unaccredited schools, where they are independently notable, but these peopel were not and the articles contained no assertion of notability (WP:CSD criterion A7). If you look through my history you'll see that I take a very dim view of attempts to "Gastroturf" unaccredited schools. Guy (Help!) 21:48, 16 December 2006 (UTC)
Then please send the text you unilaterally deleted without discussion, as I did it all in Wikipedia directly (which I won't do again if this kind of admin action is the way things are headed here). Some of that information should probably considered for the PWU article (Warfield's arrest, etc.). FYI, I am a Quackwatch affiliate and agree entirely with you about diploma mills, but your unilateral actions are highly troubling and smack of zealotry and disregard for process. Your implication that my good faith effort to write articles by clicking on red links (which is what I do primarily, having started 600 or 700 biographies) is "gastroturfing" is frankly insulting. Jokestress 22:17, 16 December 2006 (UTC)
I think you need to calm down a bit, please. I might be a bit of a rouge admin, but when I act boldly I do so because I believe it's in the best interests of the encyclopaedia. Warfield's arrest seems to me to be a WP:LIVING violation, for example, since it's just about the only thing about him which has ever been in the press, and it seems he was never charged or convicted - I don't see what part of WP:BIO he is asserted to meet and I have no desire to start a puppet theatre on AfD, which is what has happened in the past with similar scenarios. I have no reason to doubt your good faith (I did check your contribution history, you are not one of the editors who concerns me especially here) but I do have some reason to doubt the good faith of those who insert redlinks to "key figures" in the history of an institution which has received virtually no coverage other than allegations of being a diploma mill; we also have the WP:OFFICE problem, someone out there is throwing their weight around and we have to be very, very careful. Gastroturfing is definitely going on, as witness the number of articles where PWU degrees have recently been added without any note that they are unaccredited. As you probably know, Wikipedia is the number one most attractive target these days for people promoting dodgy businesses, fringe theories and other sorts of things we don't want. So. If you really want the text you are welcome to it, of course, and I'm sorry for the wasted effort, but I am very concerned that we are being abused by supporters of what looks on the face of it very much like a diploma mill - the awarding of "life experience" degrees and fixed-price degrees (both done by PWU) is generally considered diagnostic. Guy (Help!) 22:30, 16 December 2006 (UTC)
Please email me the deleted text and I'll get it to an offsite resource like credentialwatch. Thanks. Jokestress 22:48, 16 December 2006 (UTC)
Done. On the whole I think that is a much better idea. Guy (Help!) 22:54, 16 December 2006 (UTC)

Re to comment on my talk page[edit]

Hi. I see your point, but I am quite surprised that this had caused controversy to begin with. The other editor has made a habit of making many minuscule changes to articles - following them requires a lot of attention, and, since the wording replaced is unlikely to have been "wrong" (as opposed to "not the best possible"), that effort was not worth it (just because he did not want to use diacritics for some peculiar reason). With or without diacritics, some of the minor edits were simply redundant.

This was not about ownership of the text. I happen to have created much of the text, but have certainly allowed similar edits on it, and will welcome much more substantial changes if it should be the case. This was, IMO, a mere decrease in quality, and rather impolite in the assumption that I or other editors were supposed to re-add the diacritics. Dahn 11:44, 17 December 2006 (UTC)

Sure, I was just letting you know and assuming good faith on all sides. A slightly longer or more conciliatory edit summary should not be a big deal, and I left a note on his Talk saying that my reading of the summary was different to his, and that it was a reasonable action (for stated reasons). I really don't think it is a big deal, but I do know (from previous interactions) that this user - and these subjects - are a bit touchy. Given your long editing history I don't think you'll have any trouble fixing the problem, and if you do it'll probably be the other party's fault not yours. Guy (Help!) 13:27, 17 December 2006 (UTC)
Thank you. Dahn 15:47, 17 December 2006 (UTC)

AfD'd article revamped[edit]

You might like to take another look at the AfD before the week expires. SAJordan talkcontribs 07:35, 24 Dec 2006 (UTC).

The real Leona Lewis[edit]

Just a note: on December 16, 2006, the genuine Leona Lewis won the X-Factor competition, and her page is no longer a redirect but a full (and legitimate) article; Leona Louise Lewis and Leona-Louise Lewis redirect to it. The User:Leonalewis you blocked was very probably not the same person, but borrowing the real singer's name. SAJordan talkcontribs 21:39, 17 Dec 2006 (UTC).

  • All completely reasonable. Guy (Help!) 21:41, 17 December 2006 (UTC)

A Matter for Discussion[edit]

I have a matter that has been bugging me for some time now, and A Man in Black recommended you after he and I have come to blows with this.

The particular matter concerns various Yu-Gi-Oh! and Yu-Gi-Oh! GX [ages. I understand entirely Wikipedia's policy on sourcing material. However, AMIB says direct observations and fansites are not allowed. I agree on the latter, but the former confuses me. Simply put, the official Yu-Gi-Oh! page does not supply much information about anything, and is often outdated. If only the official page were to be used for a source, then several pages would either be deleted or have vast amount of content removed.

I think that, at least for the case of Yu-Gi-Oh!, and probably other shows where this is a problem, direct observation of the episodes is the only reliable source. Now, this issue started with AMIB deleting an unsourced article, but I can supply an on-line copy of the episode in which the information disclosed in the article is given, and by all accounts I do not understand why such a video is not a viable source. I just feel that, if we can supply any official material to back-up the information, it should count as a source, and in the case of television shows, wouldn't the episodes themselves be excellent sources? In this particular show, they're the only trustworthy source that isn't a fansite.

What I'm asking is why direct observation is not allowed. In the case of Yu-Gi-Oh!, it's more or less the only reliable source we have that isn't a fansite. I think the rulings on direct observation of television shows should have exceptions for shows where the official sites offer little to no useful information.

Drake Clawfang 05:47, 18 December 2006 (UTC)

I suspect that he and I fundamentally agree here. Direct observation may be acceptable for an uncontroversial fact, and we can cite an episode as a source provided we give sufficient detail for verification (episode foo, 8min 7s in), but we absolutely may not draw inferences from observation - thus, if character foo is seen in red in five episodes and not seen at all in any others we may say that foo appears only in red, but we may not say that red is their favourite colour, or speculate on whether other colours are possible, and if there are no sources other than observation, then inclusion is highly questionable. What is the precise piece of information you want to include in this instance? Guy (Help!) 08:30, 18 December 2006 (UTC)
Well there is a character in GX that uses two main monsters: Cyber Dragon and Cyberdark Dragon, and the two are based off of Chinese mythos and the yin-yang, with the Cyber Dragons being the yang and the Cyberdark being the yin. His master who gives him the cards uses a balanced deck that is neither, is a balance between the two forces. AMIB deleted ths article for not having a source. As mentioned, I can provide an on-line video (unfortunately, it will be Japanese, the dubbed anime omits these details) and I can easily provide the time in which he describes the yin-yang properties of the card. If I do this, can I recreate the page? Drake Clawfang 13:50, 18 December 2006 (UTC)
Without a reliable secondary source to back at least the core substance of the article I'm afraid you're onto a loser. However accurate, it will be denounced as fancruft - if it is not documented even by the Yu-Gi-Oh! sites, it's almost certainly below the level of notability we expect, and will most likely be dismissed as unverifiable as well with only one source, and that primary. Primary notability criterion: has been the subject of multiple non-trivial coverage in reliable secondary sources independent of the subject. That's because WP:NOT a directory as well as WP:NOR, WP:V, WP:RS and ensuring WP:NPOV. An article which relies entirely on watching the episodes is always going to be a problem. Guy (Help!) 13:58, 18 December 2006 (UTC)
Okay. In that case, as mentioned the sites are horrible for info, so that's it, the only other source I know of that has the information is Janime. Thanks anyway. Drake Clawfang 17:46, 18 December 2006 (UTC)

Not productive?[edit]

Can you be more specific? What is not productive, or helpful? Do I delete articles, or somebody's coments? Do i call the whole one nation "nationalistic"? Do i say that for to edit the encyclopedia one doesn't need knowledge? Please be more specific.
194.152.217.129 16:29, 18 December 2006 (UTC)

The whole comment came across as, to put it charitably, a rehashing of past grievances. Try making some concrete suggestions as to how the article could be improved to improve its neutrality, preferably with good, solid, reliable sources (newspapers, books etc.) to back you. We can cover controversial topics pretty well when both sides agree to document rather than assert their differences. Start small, with some specific changes that can be debated, and let the admins know if the response is less than civil. Guy (Help!) 16:33, 18 December 2006 (UTC)
Good. So once again: Pax sais that the Croatian nation is "nationalistic". Now, i am not a primitive man to let me be insulted by anything someone throws on me, but that is hardly up to civilised manner standards. Doesn't he deserve at least warning for something like that. That can also make an insight in his neutrality concerning the article. Second, he says there that one doesn't need a knowledge to make an encyclopedia, only guts. That can make a valuable insight in his intentions editing wikipedia. that makes our discussion to important to be deleted just like that.
What consernes the article itself, i am a Narentine and i can tell you that there is no evidence in the history that narentines ever considered themselfs as Serbs. ...but you don't have to care about that, just let me have a fer terms for the discussion. If he doesn't have the arguments, you don't have to be his atorny.

Than again, he continues to reffere to me as to some Afrika guy, which I'm not.
194.152.217.129 16:47, 18 December 2006 (UTC)

All nations are nationalistic, though, aren't they? That's rather the point. Anyway, if you can state calmly and without reference to personalities exactly what it is you want to change, to what, and with what authority (cited external reliable sources), you will have much less trouble. Keep calm and all should eventually be well. It may take time, but patience and good sourcing should always win on Wikipedia, even if it means documenting two competing claims and their basis. Guy (Help!) 16:51, 18 December 2006 (UTC)
Well, i appreciate your good will, but I think you will have to try harder as well. First of all, a nation can not be a nationalistic since (quote) "Nationalism is an ideology [1] that holds that a nation is the fundamental unit for human social life...", and a nation can not have an ideology, just an individual. i never thought by being a Croat, I'm something special, an that makes me NOT nationalistic. You could see that I criticized a Croatian nationalistic "historians" in my discussion there. But if someone tries to cancel my right for calling myself a Croat - that just won't do. Maybe you don't know, but recently Croats had the war straggling for this right, and the statements made without any proof like this one in the Pagania article were the catalyst for the Serbian aggression on my country. That cost too many lives and therefor makes it difficult to stay calm discussing it. but i don't think I crossed the line by being vulgar, or insulting. You can see that Pax even tried to twist my words against me, trying to make me look bad. Maybe you should have a word or two with him. I don't want to make an editing war, but please, put back my comments on the board where they belong.
194.152.217.129 17:13, 18 December 2006 (UTC)
Look, I've said what you need to do to fix the problem: raise, on the Talk page, with good quality cited sources, the changes or additions you want made, avoiding personalities and sticking to the article; just take this at face value, yes? It doesn't take a genius to realise that the article has been the subject of some very heated debate in the past and while I'm happy to spend the rest of the day chewing the fat about it here, in the end if you want something fixed you're going to have to go to the article and get it fixed, one way or another, and the way that is most likely to work is to cite good sources, be specific and keep away from the personalities of other editors. I thought that was pretty uncontroversial. Do you have a problem with this? I have no intention of getting drawn in to the debate, but I can help you with the dispute resolution process if you have a problem with another editor. I already have one ethnic feud on my watchlist and I'd rather not have another right now, content disputes can be settled by reasoned debate, and those who refuse to engage in reasoned debate can be blocked or banned from the topic. It's an imperfect system and it takes time to produce the right result, but it's what we've got and for the most part it works well enough. Guy (Help!) 18:43, 18 December 2006 (UTC)
I'm sure you have good intentions, but the fact that the author of the article doesn't have the proof for he's statements should be enough to change these statements in the article. There is simply no evidence of Narentines considering themselves Serbs back in tenth century. There is no evidence whatsoever about their exact ethnic origin, and all the author can say about it is a pure speculation. it is a subject that's been cause of the disputes for a very long time. The author himself acknowledges that he doesn't need knowledge to write the article!That should be enough to delete it from the encyclopedia, cause encyclopedia is about FACTS, isn't it. Now, I know I can not persuade author to change this in his article through discussion, but what are my options then? And why is he keep on calling me Afrika? Who gives him the right to put a tag on me? What can I do about that?
Next, you can not delete my comments only cause you don't like them. What is it that I said that deserved this treatment? And again: shouldn't you warn Pax for putting the tag on the whole nation? That's what I call crossing the line.
PS When you say you don't want to be involved - it's too late. By deleting my contributions you've already done that. If you want back the fer way is to put it back on the board. 89.172.22.82 19:39, 18 December 2006 (UTC)
Sources. Specifics. At the article. OK? This is just arm-waving and really not productive, you're not going to enlist me to either side of the dispute, trying to do so may even be counter-productive. Seriously, you need to raise your specific problems with reliable sources and what you want changed, or you are going to get nowhere. If the other editor(s) refuse to engage in civil debate, then you go to dispute resolution. Any editor who resists addition of content whose only source is the International Journal of Because I Said So is doing right - so if you want to get credibility in the dispute, you go with good sources, and then you have legitimate grounds for complaint if the other editor(s) are obdurate. If you need help achieving this, there is always the association of members' advocates but honestly I don't see why you should not just go back with good sources and start from there.
As to why the other editor calls you Afrika, this User:194.152.217.129 explains all. If you are User:Afrika paprika then you are wasting both our time. Guy (Help!) 19:54, 18 December 2006 (UTC)
Again i repeat: the author doesn't have ANY sources for his claims! Serious historians can not find the agreement on this matter. That's why it was always the weapon for the Serbian nationalists. I explained that already and doesn't want to repeat myself. This is a serious thing. And why are you saying that I'm trying to make you take sides? How can I? And you didn't tell me why have you removed my contributions. Were the obscene? Incorrect?
Once again I repeat: I am not Afrika Paprika! Not all people who disagrees with Pax Equilibrium is Afrika Paprika. 89.172.17.226 20:31, 18 December 2006 (UTC)
You have made no attempt to deny that you and the other IP are one, and we have CheckUser evidence that the other IP is Afrika paprika. Plus it passes the duck test. Guy (Help!) 21:09, 18 December 2006 (UTC)

BTW Do you have the right to delete my contributions if you don't like them. they are not insultive at all and just stating the facts.

Yes. But do remember that I have never even seen that article before and have no idea what it's about - my dislike of your comments is purely on the grounds stated. Guy (Help!) 16:33, 18 December 2006

Kendrick Scott[edit]

It was suggested that I come to you for assistance about the deletion of this article. Basically, I think someone may have deleted this article without realizing that it had changed subjects since it was last AFDed (by myself). The latest incarnation of the article is about a jazz drummer, and he looked like he had at least mediocre claims to notability, enough that I had looked at the article and decided not to prod it. Could you take a look and see if you can retrieve it? --Brianyoumans 17:36, 18 December 2006 (UTC)

  • It was also largely the work of User:Kadscott, whihc is not a good sign... Feel free to create a new article citing independent sources (this had none) - if you need the deleted content you can have it but it's not up to much and you'd likely be better starting afresh from sources. It's certainly plausible that the fellow is notable. Guy (Help!) 18:32, 18 December 2006 (UTC)
    • Seems reasonable. I'll restart it. It will be useful if nothing else to help prevent the return of all the other, non-notable Kendrick Scotts. --Brianyoumans 19:53, 18 December 2006 (UTC)

Please?[edit]

Soviet Ritzakstahn —The preceding unsigned comment was added by SchmuckyTheCat (talkcontribs) 19:25, 18 December 2006 (UTC).

Namis Noman[edit]

Thanks for the speedydel of Namis Noman, I was unsure as to whether it fitted the criteria for speedy deletion :) --Veesicle 20:15, 18 December 2006 (UTC)

  • It was a tough call - if he'd been eleventh grade I'd have had to send it to AfD :-) Guy (Help!) 19:59, 18 December 2006 (UTC)
    • Haha :D Also, as you seem to be online right now, would you agree that Earth manipulation meets criteria for speedydel? It seems to be utter nonsense --Veesicle 20:15, 18 December 2006 (UTC)

Retrocausality[edit]

Hi Guy, as per your recommendation, I've totally reworked the above article as a revamped stub. Please take another look if you like. Thanks Bwithh 20:38, 18 December 2006 (UTC)

Ah, much better. Now I understand it, anyway :-) Guy (Help!) 21:01, 18 December 2006 (UTC)

Some stuff on Anal stretching[edit]

It's in DRV, and the author is complaining about heavy handed admins deleting for G4. Could you provide a copy of the originally deleted version, and the most recent one, so we can compare? This is what you get for Category:Wikipedia administrators who will provide copies of deleted articles, by the way. -Amarkov blahedits 23:23, 18 December 2006 (UTC)

Thanks. -Amarkov blahedits 23:43, 18 December 2006 (UTC)
A completely unambiguous G4, the first para was word for word the same and most of the rest was as well. I'm all for assuming good faith, but he's taken the piss. Game over, as far as I'm concerned. Guy (Help!) 23:48, 18 December 2006 (UTC)
* Nonsense. I attempted to recreate the article, making sure it was not in any was a how to guide (even see the talk page for the article!) and before I could finish ZAP, it was deleted. What's worse is that the article is now locked from recreation. Next time I'll be sure to put a template saying "Hey heavy-handed admins, this article is being amended so as to comply with AfD." (See template below!)
Now say it with me
"Amendments before deletion!"' Rfwoolf 08:53, 19 December 2006 (UTC)
Now say it with me: don't recreate substantially identical copies of articles deleted through process, and when people assume good faith, don't take the piss. Guy (Help!) 09:25, 19 December 2006 (UTC)
I probably should have assumed that, but my last experience with something like this doesn't help me assume without evidence. -Amarkov blahedits 23:49, 18 December 2006 (UTC)
"Trust, but verify" :-) Guy (Help!) 23:58, 18 December 2006 (UTC)

Deletion of article "GrodsCorp"[edit]

Hi,

You claimed no assertion of notoriety. At the bottom of the post was a link to the site in the National Library of Australia Pandora Archive. Websites are selected for inclusion in the archive "based on their significance and their research value in the long term" and the Pandora Archive is "committed to preserving electronic publications of lasting cultural value." Is this not a reasonable level of notoriety?

Cheers, Scott

GrodsCorp 00:05, 19 December 2006 (UTC)

  • Oh well. There goes half the "Australian Bloggers" category then. I trust you'll be onto it. GrodsCorp 00:31, 19 December 2006 (UTC)

anonymous block[edit]

"Harrassment" is not listed as a valid reason for blocking, nor is blocking without warning nor dicussion.

66.252.244.140 00:28, 19 December 2006 (UTC)

  • So you say. Me, I am a wicked rouge admin and I say "fuck process". Guy (Help!) 00:33, 19 December 2006 (UTC)

Starwood links RFAR Statement Thanks[edit]

You sure are a busy guy, Guy. Thanks for weighing in on the Starwood RFAR and, of course, on your excellent taste in who to agree with. It's been a rather wearying situation. At some points I've doubted my actions and asked myself "Am I really correct in how I see the issues and actions here?" When more experienced Wikipedians (such as yourself) observe the same things when they look at the situation, I find it very encouraging. I'm still not sure the RFAR was the correct path to go but we'll see how that turns out. Mediation appears to be at an end with CheNuevara's summary. I'm wryly amused that one principle in the matter opted to close his account rather than face arbitration. I'm not entirely sure it was the best decision on my part to edit under my real name rather than a handle. However, I'm a firm believer in accountability for my actions on Wikipedia.

Well, look at me ramble at you. Sorry. I really only wanted to express my appreciation for your words in the matter. --Pigman (talk • contribs) 07:01, 19 December 2006 (UTC)

  • No problem. It can be hard to remain objective when faced with determined promotion of a fringe view, but I think you maintained your equilibrium with that summary. Guy (Help!) 08:01, 19 December 2006 (UTC)

Preventing recreation of Anal Stretching article[edit]

I see you have gone and unilaterally locked the Anal stretching article and preventing its recreation -- assumably from me. Are you now saying that no such article ever should exist on Wikipedia? How is one supposed to recreate it now?
Furthermore, see the deletion review article -- you have contradicted yourself -- by saying the article was no longer a how-to guide but gone and deleted it anyways.
Please UNLOCK the Anal Stretching article. Rfwoolf 07:35, 19 December 2006 (UTC)

  • You repeatedly re-created it in near-identical words to the deleted version, deleted by a valid AfD, despite being told that was not an option. WP:CSD G4 and WP:SALT apply. In what way is this my fault? Guy (Help!) 07:59, 19 December 2006 (UTC)
    • How else am I to improve it but to recreate it perhaps with the original info? And more over, you say "Repeatedly re-created", I recreated it twice, okay, because the first time in the middle of fixing it up yet another admin deleted it for G4. Twice is not 'repeatedly' -- the recreation lock is a little harsh. Unlock please. Deal with people with reason, not admin power.
      I listen to reason, not unilateral actions. Rfwoolf 08:56, 19 December 2006 (UTC)
    • I also forgot, the main reason for the original deletion was 'how to' -- the article I recreated wasn't 'how to' even according to you (see your comments on deletion review). Remember wikipolicy: Follow the spirit of the rules, not the letter. Don't knee-jerk delete and lock an article while I'm busy trying to fix it up, okay? Rfwoolf 08:59, 19 December 2006 (UTC)
      • You re-created an article substantially identical to the one which was deleted by a valid AfD. You were advised not to do that, you did it anyway. Twice. End of story. Guy (Help!) 09:23, 19 December 2006 (UTC)

Comments at ANI[edit]

Don't bait Fys like he did you. Just help build the encyclopedia.—Ryūlóng (竜龍) 09:25, 19 December 2006 (UTC)

Um, he was baiting me, actually. Again. He has a history of that, from my reading of it. See User:Fys where he states that the three-revert rule should "die in screaming agony" - from a persistent and multiply-blocked edit warrior, that is tantamount to a declaration of war, I'd say. Guy (Help!) 09:30, 19 December 2006 (UTC)
I know he was baiting you. But your reply to him wasn't exactly kosher.—Ryūlóng (竜龍) 09:32, 19 December 2006 (UTC)
Yeah, you're right, I should just ignore the trolling. But it's hard. Guy (Help!) 09:33, 19 December 2006 (UTC)
Look at it this way: At least your troll hasn't been bothering you all over the internets.—Ryūlóng (竜龍) 09:37, 19 December 2006 (UTC)
Nasty. Gold star for keeping your cool. Guy (Help!) 09:40, 19 December 2006 (UTC)

Retrocause[edit]

Hi there! I saw you closed this DRV. I wanted to do the same yesterday but I don't know which templates cause that collapsing bar thingy. Please enlighten me? Thanks. (Radiant) 09:54, 19 December 2006 (UTC)

Yes, took me a bit of poking around, too. {{drt}} ({{drt|[[article]]|result ~~~}}) and {{drb}} seems to be about right. Guy (Help!) 10:04, 19 December 2006 (UTC)
  • Thanks. I've added some redirects. (Radiant) 10:23, 20 December 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for deleting[edit]

Thanks for deleting that dumb project page and other pages. (and no, I'm not being sarcastic) :) --RedPooka 17:34, 19 December 2006 (UTC)

Hopefully you spotted that I was trying to save your blushes :-) You can request deletion of things you think better of using {{db-user}}. Guy (Help!) 17:37, 19 December 2006 (UTC)

Requesting information on a banned user[edit]

Dear Mr. Chapman:

I write to you to request information regarding the blocking/banning of User:Mr Spunky Toffee, sockpuppet of User:Brian G. Crawford. I ask because I had a run-in with him a couple of months ago, in which he attempted to delete a page I had written and insulted me repeatedly. I was intrigued (but not altogether surprised) to discover a few days ago that he had been blocked as a sock-puppet, but I do know that he had a long history of personal attacks on other users.

What I would like to know is, what was it that got Brian G. Crawford banned from Wikipedia in the first place? He is not listed on Wikipedia:List of banned users, nor is he included in the Category:Banned Wikipedia users. His user page states that "This user is banned from all Wikimedia projects by order of the Foundation." But, the Wikipedia:Banning policy page states that "The Wikimedia Foundation has the authority to ban users, though it has not exercised this authority on the English Wikipedia."

So frankly, I am a bit confused as to what went on here, which is why I am asking you, as you are the one who discovered that Mr Spunky Toffee was Crawford's sockpuppet. I will understand if this information is confidential or otherwise unavailable; if this is the case please let me know on my talk page. Or, if you would rather talk to me in private (by e-mail or otherwise), let me know and I would be happy to accommodate you.

I thank you in advance for your assistance.

--Eastlaw 19:56, 19 December 2006 (UTC)

Death threats, I understand. He was banned by Brad Patrick from Foundation, so I don't think anyone will necessarily have the full facts. He was on psychogenic medication at the time, but it's generally considered that he's shot his bolt. Guy (Help!) 20:13, 19 December 2006 (UTC)
Well, I found this, which certainly explains a few things. I was thinking of asking Brad Patrick about this, but then again, I don't want to get too nosy. Of course, since I am about to graduate from law school, maybe he could help me find work (LOL j/k). Thanks for your help though. --Eastlaw 23:08, 19 December 2006 (UTC)

Sweetest Day images[edit]

You deleted two images that were in teh Sweetest Day article: [25] and [26]. While there were a bunch of images from this editor that were problematic, these two were no up for deletion, and weren't listed in the Wikipedia:Images and media for deletion/2006 November 29 reference you provide for the reason of removal. Why were they deleted? Some of us think they should remain in the article (Talk:Sweetest Day) - can you undelete them? Not a dog 20:03, 19 December 2006 (UTC)

  • Oops, careless. Sorry. Guy (Help!) 20:10, 19 December 2006 (UTC)
  • Agreed, deleting those is throwing the baby out with the bathwater... I'll revert the article pending those being added back.--Isotope23 20:17, 19 December 2006 (UTC)
  • Moving target, was the problem. Re-uploading the images faster than they could be IfDd. If he'd simply respected consensus, of course, there would have been no problem... Guy (Help!) 20:30, 19 December 2006 (UTC)
  • You also deleted many more images which were not up for deletion including the digital scans of Vera Sissons, Jimmy and Emil observing Sweetest Day, and 3 Sweetest Day editorials from Cleveland Newspapers. These were digital scans from The Cleveland Public Library. They were not even nominated for deletion. You also removed an entire batch of photos which were nominated for deletion, but the debate had only started on December 14, and it seems you removed the debate as well. These images included about 6 high resolution images of the 1910, 1920, and 1930 Cuyahoga County Census Forms containing very readable (and altered) information about Herbert Birch Kingston, the alleged founder of Sweetest Day. Your removal of these images hardly seems careless. Please restore the images which were not nominated, and the December 14 debate on the other images. And while you're at it, why not restore the images being debated also. Next please explain why when Not a dog nominated these images for deletion on December 14 no notification was given to me, and why when Isotope23 made this request for comment I was also not notified. Finally, please explain why you removed my comments from my talk page. They were addressed only to the sneaky snakes, not legitimate Wikipedia editors. Miracleimpulse 21:10, 19 December 2006 (UTC)
  • You had several opportunities to stop being disruptive, and you ignored them. Your "sneaky snakes" nonsense is just as problematic (and if you re-post it please rest assured I will block you for gross incivility and disruption). You are not in a position to throw your weight around, I'd say. I'm sure if anyone wants more of the images they will come and ask me, I'd say they were weary of your interpretation of the subject and happy to leave it as-is, myself. Guy (Help!) 21:22, 19 December 2006 (UTC)
  • So my being "disruptive" for adding factual information to an article is a reason to delete images without nomination or discussion and an entire debate from the history of Wikipedia? Where is the record of the December 14 debates? Please provide a link. Miracleimpulse 21:35, 19 December 2006 (UTC)
  • You lost that particular argument a while back, as far as I can see. Guy (Help!) 21:43, 19 December 2006 (UTC)
  • The thing I find most peculiar here is that a new user posted on the Sweetest Day talk page today then an anon IP posted the same message on the AN/I thread I opened. This IP's only other edit was to correct the spelling on a post User:Miracleimpulse made. It's all very curious.--Isotope23 21:52, 19 December 2006 (UTC)
  • That user will find themselves blocked, I think, and it will be interesting to see if the autoblock affects friend Miracleimpulse. Guy (Help!) 22:08, 19 December 2006 (UTC)
  • It won't... Miracleimpulse edits from a different IP... but like I said, it is very curious...--Isotope23 00:36, 20 December 2006 (UTC)
And he does have a history of using multiple account in other online spaces: User talk:Miracleimpulse#Multiple accounts?
  • Yo why don't you restore the deleted images and debate and stop blocking Wikipedians whos opinion differs from yours. Miracleimpulse 23:03, 19 December 2006 (UTC) 23:01, 19 December 2006 (UTC)

Mikebe[edit]

Can you talk to User:Mikebe please? He's having some problems with another user engaging in POV edits on beer-related articles. I'm very busy IRL right now and will be for the forseeable future and so can't deal with it. (Also, I know nothing about beer). Thanks. JoshuaZ 22:20, 19 December 2006 (UTC)

For sure. Beer! Mmmmmmm! Guy (Help!) 11:05, 20 December 2006 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Husnock[edit]

Hello,

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

On behalf of the Arbitration Committee, —— Eagle 101 (Need help?) 04:21, 20 December 2006 (UTC)

Thanks[edit]

Raok barnstar.png The Random Acts of Kindness Barnstar
Thanks for the support! MONGO 09:34, 20 December 2006 (UTC)


Wolf effect[edit]

Added this article to watchlist, although not around much till new year. Have a good vacation. FT2 (Talk | email) 15:51, 20 December 2006 (UTC)

No comment/query[edit]

I have nothing to say, except that I have had interactions with the author before (pleasant ones) and therefore do not wish to opine, but see what you think about Theo Clarke (the article, not the user). Geogre 13:10, 16 December 2006 (UTC)

For the avoidance of doubt, please note that my only contribution to that article was the addition of the speedy template.—Theo (Talk) 18:41, 20 December 2006 (UTC)

Afrika paprika & me[edit]

I want to clear some things. First of all, I never said that the Croatian nation is nationalistic; Second of all, I do stand by the fact that I claim that a wide knowledge is not necessary to edit Wikipedia - after all; it's not about truth, but verifiability instead; and I was also referring to the liberal attitude of this Free Encyclopedia. And finally, this meat army of anons (and other meatpuppets) has been established even through checkuser that they're all sockpuppets of this community-banned very disruptive troll. I pushed for the Checkuser precisely because Afrika keeps constantly returning and denying that he's himself - even though many (most) have said that a user-check is not necessary because 1) it's pretty obvious that they're Afrika's socks and 2) the user has and keeps self-identifying as none other than User:Afrika paprika himself. I am deleting his edits, because they're edits of a banned user - and as per WP:BLOCK, all edits of indef-blocked users're to be reverted. As for him being a Narentine... well, trouble is that those Pagans have been extinct for centuries by now, and most of their descendants live in today's eastern and south Serbia (allegedly), so I do not understand the myth that Afrika paprika has just presented to You. I apologize if I seem to extreme, but this User has threatened me that (literally) Jesus will f*** my mother, called me a "SlavoSerbian shit" and said that I suck Seselj's d**k and called me a "Chetnik". Truly Yours, --PaxEquilibrium 20:01, 18 December 2006 (UTC)

I do not know about Afrika's Croatian nationalism, but these (and many other) comments are indeed proofs of xenophobia. I, as the writer of the Pagania article, have to state that the article has sources (it's sourced), so there is proof, - while the "other side" sharing opposing arguments at the talk page has not once presented any source whatsoever. Also, the very term of "Serbian aggression to Croatia" referring to the early 1990s warring in the Republic of Croatia (ex Socialist Federal Republic of Yugoslavia) is inherently POV. It's an opinion to many, but many it was an example of Croatian aggression (and the current Wikipedia article reflects the middle, which is NPOV). For example, it was mostly a "Croatian aggression" and nothing else to over half a million victims of the war (then, referring to "Serbian aggression" is (insulting to all those) something like negating the tortures of all those thousands and others who had suffered in most probably one of the most stupidest wars ever fought on the face of the earth). --PaxEquilibrium 20:17, 18 December 2006 (UTC)

  • Yes, I know exactly where you're at there. I stand by what I said to the anon above, though - if he were to bring sources and specifics, and steer clear of personalities, he'd stand some chance. Arm-waving and ad-hominem? Forget it. As to the threats, Paprika can stay banned. On the face of it, if he hasn't learned by now he's not going to, and any more crapw ill just get the IP blocked. Guy (Help!) 20:26, 18 December 2006 (UTC)

As for proofs - I already said that the whole article is sourced (and AFAIC no source for what Afrika claims), as for back in the tenth century - there oh-so-much is (one dating from ca. 950. I quoted it). It hasn't been disputed at all until Afrika showed up :). The Wikipedia (although treading with FACTS), is verifiability, not truth. The User did not discuss, but resorted to edit-warring and other various disruptions which earned him a community block. I have the right to put the tag as the Wikipedia deals with sockpuppetry - I repeat, You are observing a whole armada of (both self-confirmed and checkuser-ed) meat-puppets of Afrika paprika. --PaxEquilibrium 20:33, 18 December 2006 (UTC)

These are the authors proofs:

Ćorović, Vladimir (2005). ИЛУСТРОВАНА ИСТОРИЈА СРБА, Book I, Politika. Ćorović, Vladimir (2005). ИЛУСТРОВАНА ИСТОРИЈА СРБА, Book II, Politika. Constantine VII Porphyrogenitos, ca. 950, De Administrando Imperio, ed. Gy. Moravcsik, trans. R.J.H. Jenkins, rev. ed., Washington, Dumbarton Oaks Center for Byzantine Studies, 1967. Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pagania"
Now, on the first two, I won't waste words. As far as the third "proof" goes I repeat: serious historians are still doubting it as a reliable source. And if you want to play like that, the emperor himself is saying that Coats came to Balkan first, chasing out the Avars, setling there. Then came Serbs... But, for the author, the first part and "Red Croatia" is a mith! And he claims that Serbs settled the previously uninhabited parts of peninsula. Fruitfull plains of Neretva river were uninhabited! Come on! And the fact that there was Narona is also a mith?
Once again: Stop calling me Paprika, or maybe I should think of a name for you? 89.172.17.226 20:55, 18 December 2006 (UTC)

So: two unreliable, one doubtfully reliable, historians generally disputing it. Must try harder :-) Guy (Help!) 21:00, 18 December 2006 (UTC)
Me or him? :)) Three unreliable sources are enough to make it NOT a fact I guess, and therefore not fit for the encyclopedia.89.172.17.226 21:04, 18 December 2006 (UTC)
You want a change made, it's up to you to support it from reliable sources. Guy (Help!) 21:07, 18 December 2006 (UTC)
OK, I will try to dig into history book to prove to you that I am a Croat :)))

No, seriously, shouldn't it be the other way arround? Shouldn't author have the proof of what he's writing about?89.172.17.226 21:13, 18 December 2006 (UTC)

Ahm, no - I have sources, you do not, Afrika. I don't understand - You're a Pagan? What did You do 800 years ago, invent a time machine and came here, to the present? Wow, that's amazing. :D Oh, and I'm a Babylonian. --PaxEquilibrium 21:47, 18 December 2006 (UTC)
There's one more source he forgot to mention (but I guess it'll also be unreliable to Afrika): "Narentines - the forgotten Serb tribe". And this "Red Croatia" has absolutely no relevance to Doclea. I'm not claiming anything, I'm just posting sources. What on earth "peninsula"? --PaxEquilibrium 21:13, 18 December 2006 (UTC)
This "source" is no source at all. The author of this article doesn't make any proof of the Serbian origin of Narentines. He behaves just like the author of Pagania article.
I sad hundred times before: stop calling me names. Try to be decent. 89.172.17.226 21:22, 18 December 2006 (UTC)
Uh, for Christ's sake it's a source to the article, and not to just one bit of it. I'm not calling You names; I'm calling You by Your name - Afrika paprika. --PaxEquilibrium 21:47, 18 December 2006 (UTC)
If the article's unsourced it could be tagged as such, but I don't think it is. The changes AP wants? I see no evidence at all to support them. Guy (Help!) 21:17, 18 December 2006 (UTC)
It's not unsourced - every bit of it is sourced. --PaxEquilibrium 21:47, 18 December 2006 (UTC)
I don't care about every bit; only the statement that Narentines were Serbs. That was never proved. In all serious history books stays that Narentines were the Slavic tribe!
Once again I say: the statements in encyclopedia should be proved. It's up to author to prove it, not up to somebody else to prove the opposite. An example:
If I wrote in Wiki that aliens visited the Earth, and that the prove for that are the pyramids and drawings on the hill, you can not prove that aliens never did visit the Earth, all you can say that my proofs are not strong enough.
Another question: It is obvious that I can never convince the author to put things right and to write "a Slavic tribe"; who should I convince to correct things in Wiki's article without starting the edit war?194.152.217.129 08:35, 19 December 2006 (UTC)

Well? How does it work? Who's the authority to decide wether the article needs acorrection?194.152.217.129 15:25, 19 December 2006 (UTC)

  • Specifics. Reliable sources. Talk page. Understand? Guy (Help!) 15:30, 19 December 2006 (UTC)
Yes, but who's to decide? Who will look at my arguments and try to understand them?194.152.217.129 15:53, 19 December 2006 (UTC)
People. Step one: state the specific requested changes and cite the reliable sources on which they are based. Make no mention whasoever of personalities. Guy (Help!) 15:59, 19 December 2006 (UTC)
OK. Step one done. What's the step two?
194.152.217.129 09:41, 20 December 2006 (UTC)
I'm so sorry to bother you, but what's the next step I should take?
89.172.26.143 17:36, 20 December 2006 (UTC)

3rr for Copyright[edit]

I was issued a 3h ban on wp:3RR#User:Alan.ca_reported_by_User:ViriiK_.28Result:_3h.29. I had reverted the image page because Viriik was removing two deletion templates before the copyright dispute was resolved. I thought I was exempt from 3r as it was an obvious copyright violation to me, yet an admin blocked my account anyway. I have contacted you because I noticed you proposed some wording for the section of copyright in the 3r documentation. Please advise. Alan.ca 19:20, 20 December 2006 (UTC)

Understood[edit]

My intentions were not to inflame this. Thanks. :: Colin Keigher (Talk) 20:03, 20 December 2006 (UTC)

Actually, after reading the two 3RR complaints about this, I don't even want to touch any of this with a ten metre (hyuck) pole. :: Colin Keigher (Talk) 20:12, 20 December 2006 (UTC)

MfD[edit]

Geez, another day, another MfD, and it's another JzG page being talked about. See Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion#Wikipedia:Criteria for Speedy Drama. Regards, Newyorkbrad 02:25, 21 December 2006 (UTC)

You're my hero, JzG. --badlydrawnjeff talk 03:15, 21 December 2006 (UTC)
Meh, it did the job at the time, I think :-) Guy (Help!) 09:50, 21 December 2006 (UTC)

Just Lima[edit]

Thanks for your kind words. Happy Christmas. Lima 14:08, 21 December 2006 (UTC)

NLP[edit]

Hello again Guy. Your assessment of the NLP article seems to have served as a useful warning to keep the basic facts clear. Though they did fight your assessment (contrary to even the most obvious facts) I am sure your message got through to them on some level. They haven’t tried to fix the problem and they’re still deleting the basics from the opening [27]. But I’m certainly reassured that admin has not forsaken the NLP article and Wikipedia authorities are helpful. I found it very odd that those NLP editors who claim to have been around so much longer than myself have shown such a “concerted” misunderstanding of basic NPOV policies. They seem to be very unlike other long term editors I have come across. I did doubt myself for a while but another investigation of the policy pages shows that the NPOV policy is clear on this matter. There is quite a lot of work for me to do on the journalism Wikipedia articles and I’ll not have much time to explain the obvious on the NLP article. But I guess it should be easier now to maintain the most basic NLP facts and report it straight according to NPOV policies. Always open to suggestion. Thanks. AlanBarnet 07:53, 18 December 2006 (UTC)

I'd appreciate it if you could expand on what you meant by promotional or if you have any proof from any significant peer reviewed literature to say that "NLP is a cult". I agree that the article could be more descriptive. At the same time the mentors said that the article needed to be more accessible. So there is a trade off here. It can be description with formal tones or simpler and easily understood. That includes fairly representing the views of critics, as well as the counter-claims in a way that does not imply that one is more correct than the other. Even if you think NLP is pseudoscience, it still must be presented as plausible. Upon checking the facts and references we found that many were misrepresented. We are still in the process of summarising the reception of NLP, including the research to date on NLP from various fields. Unfortunately the article prior to our revisions exaggerate (even misrepresented) the position of some of the more extreme skeptics while downplaying the more reasonable definitions from authors more supportive of NLP. It is not an easy topic to describe because there are so many different views on the topic. I'll attempt to make my contributions more objective and critical. Thanks for your feedback. We probably request another peer-review soon so we can get feedback on how to get closer to feature article (or WP 1.0) candidate. --Comaze 14:44, 18 December 2006 (UTC)
I'd appreciate it if you would stop editing these articles despite your known conflict of interest. Guy (Help!) 14:59, 18 December 2006 (UTC)
Thanks for pointing me to the conflict of interest. I have read it and agree with it in principle. It does suggest that editors should dislose their interests where there may be a conflict. My interests are written on my talk page. And aim to base my edits on reliable, verifiable literature. The current editors all know that I am a student of NLP. I am also a student of cognitive science and computer science with an interest in psychology. That does not stop me from editing on the cognitive science or computer science articles. Nonetheless, I will hold myself to a higher standard for verifiability, and reliability of evidence. While being an student in the field is not required, it can help. I intend help write a balanced article by collaborating with the other editors who have different views to arrive at a balanced article. Keep in mind that I have gone through mediation, arbitration and mentorship and have learnt alot about wikipedia policy. I have read the conflict of interest article and will be more critical in my writing on those articles especially where there may be a conflict. --Comaze 02:43, 19 December 2006 (UTC)
I notice you invited the arbcom to take a look at this... [28]. Where is the best place for me to explain my side of the story? --Comaze 06:20, 19 December 2006 (UTC)
On reflection, my editing has not been descriptive enough. I'm working to fix this. Thanks for the heads up. --Comaze 08:22, 22 December 2006 (UTC)

Pax Equilibrium bulling on Pagania discussion board[edit]

Hi JzG. I did what you said, found a verifyable sources, put my comments on the discussion board, and what happens? Pax removed it completely! Now if that's not bulling I don't kow what is. I'm looking for your help, couse you offered it yourself. I don't know what to do any more. this guy is constantly accusing me of being somebody else, puting tag on me and pushing me out. Is this an open encyclopedia?83.131.41.6 19:55, 20 December 2006 (UTC)

Looks like he's checking it out with another editor. Understandably, given past events, he's not going to simply accept your word as to what the sources say in full, so please help with specifics of the references. Guy (Help!) 21:09, 20 December 2006 (UTC)
OK, he can check it with another editor, it's fine by me, but he can not remove my contribution from the discussion board. He keeps on calling me Afrika Paprika, it's so unreal. I feel like the main character in the Polanski's "Tennent". What can I do to put my comments back?83.131.41.6 21:35, 20 December 2006 (UTC)
Since you and the anon proven by CheckUser are one and the same, that's hardly a surprise. Assuming that by your comments you mean this [29], you're doomed to disappointment. That comes across as a rant, ill-formed arm-waving with no substance. Stick to specifics and evidence, move on. Guy (Help!) 21:48, 20 December 2006 (UTC)
No, I ment the last comment I made. The last change in the board. And I repeat, i'm not Afrika. I also told this guy Pax that two oldest contributions on the 194.152.217.129 are not mine. Therefore, there must be someone else using this IP before me. You can not blame me for that and tag me just like that, it's not fer, and it's not Wikipedias spirit (I guess). the easiest way for Pax Equilibrium is to tag me and push me out. I'm here looking for help, cause I'm rather new and don't know all the rules. I did what you told me, put my comment on the discussion board only to be wiped out by Pax. I, as a person, not as an IP (how should I know), never used obscenety or vulgarity on internet, and if I offended somebody somhow, I'm sorry but you never know how a person can be offended. I ask you once more for help. i did what you asked of me, and the erasing from the board was the only result.
83.131.41.6 22:07, 20 December 2006 (UTC)
Thank you JzG.
83.131.41.6 22:17, 20 December 2006 (UTC)

PS I'm not AP, if that stands for what i think it stands.

From our interactions I am happy to believe that, AP is nothing like this calm and rational as a rule, but I suggest you register an account to distance yourself from the various anons. Guy (Help!) 23:04, 20 December 2006 (UTC)
I will do that, and let you know my nick :) And, hey, those help pages of yours are helpfull indeed.83.131.55.204 00:24, 21 December 2006 (UTC)
Hi, JzG. I wanted to register myself over the fixed IP I use now (194.152.217.129), but Pax Equilibrium had it blocked. Now, I exlplained many times, that I'm not Afrika Paprika, and I use this IP now. Can I have it back somehow? The admin that blocked it says he's away for some time.83.131.61.171 14:15, 22 December 2006 (UTC)

Being an admin coach[edit]

Hello Guy. I'm coordinating the Esperanza admin coaching program. I see from the status page that your student was User:Brazucs. Since s/he hasn't edited since September 19, would you like a new student? There are many people waiting for a coach and I would love to match one with an experienced admin such as yourself. Please let me know, thank you! --Fang Aili talk 15:36, 21 December 2006 (UTC)

Happy to help, anyone who wants my advice is welcome to it with standard disclaimers applied :-) Guy (Help!) 17:31, 21 December 2006 (UTC)

Talk page request[edit]

I'm attempting to take a wikibreak (and soon won't even have computer access). Could you keep track of my talk page and help out with any admin related requests there? Thanks. JoshuaZ 20:01, 21 December 2006 (UTC)

  • I'll do my best, of course. No problem at all. Guy (Help!) 21:43, 21 December 2006 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Starwood[edit]

Hello,

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

On behalf of the Arbitration Committee, --Srikeit 01:04, 22 December 2006 (UTC)

Bamboo Delight Deletion[edit]

My original Bamboo Delight article was deleted, and that too without notice. It is not an insignificant site; white nationalist sites and forums contain many references to it, and its pasing-as-harmless-Oriental-healing-info nature makes it even more notable. Just take a look at how many BD references can be seen on just one white nationalist forum: [30]. Please, please, please restore it. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by SohanDsouza (talkcontribs) 06:24, 22 December 2006 (UTC).

XMAS gift[edit]

Lots of good intentions flying around, but not much in the way of useful stuff. Here is a nice template I found to organize your ever-growing collections of awards :) -- Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | talk  14:37, 22 December 2006 (UTC)


Salad'o'meter™
put barnstars here (no thumb or direction)
n00b involved been around veteran seen it all older than the Cabal itself

Doris Brougham[edit]

Did you unilaterally delete this article? Jokestress 08:21, 17 December 2006 (UTC)

I see you removed this and Srully Blotnick without discussion. Please reinstate both and send them through AfD or I am going to report these incidents. I also suggest you stop unilaterally deleting biographies with citations and disputed notability and send them through AfD instead. Wikipedia works by consensus, not fiat. Thanks. Jokestress 08:36, 17 December 2006 (UTC)
Same applies. Articles on individuals with no evident claim to notability can be deleted under WP:CSD criterion A7. deletion review is available, as always. Guy (Help!) 09:29, 17 December 2006 (UTC)
Reported. I guarantee these will be overturned, and I reiterate that AfD is better in instances like these. Jokestress 09:59, 17 December 2006 (UTC)
You guarantee, eh? Well maybe you're right, but maybe you're not. You've been around the project longer than I have, I think, but I have spent a long time around AfD and DRV because admins do that shit. In the end I don't think this is personal, so let's wait and see. Guy (Help!) 13:35, 17 December 2006 (UTC)
Last thing I'll say on the matter, but in the future, please do not unilaterally delete articles that have reliable sources but questionable notability. AfD is always better if there's any doubt, and it's the only correct option if there's a reliable published source. It's better to err on the side of caution than to create a lot of unneeded conflict. Looking forward to continuing work on the main PWU article with you. Jokestress 07:08, 23 December 2006 (UTC)
I will continue to do what I do, I think. I am strongly opposed to vanispamcruftisement, especially when people pushing an agenda manipulate others like you into doing their work for them. Guy (Help!) 10:32, 23 December 2006 (UTC)

Hot Air[edit]

I don't see why this page was unilaterally deleted.
If you felt that it didn't meet the guidelines for Wikipedia you should have listed it for an afd.
It was not advertising-blatant or otherwise-and it was not spam.
There should have been some debate over whether this article met the standards of Wikipedia, since there seems to be some disagreement on that point. Ruthfulbarbarity 18:15, 18 December 2006 (UTC)
Deletion review is that way → Guy (Help!) 18:33, 18 December 2006 (UTC)
I was under the impression that if one of your articles was up for deletion the person was informed on their talk page. Ruthfulbarbarity 01:41, 19 December 2006 (UTC)
Depends on the circumstances. People tagging an article for speedy should really notify the creator, but admins clearing the speedy delete category (which regularly runs to some hundreds of articles) tend not to verify that. It takes long enough as it is. Speedy deletions are not unilateral deletions, they are tagged by one editor (usually as offering no assertion of notability) and then deleted by an admin after checking that the claimed grounds for deletion is correct. Mistakes do sometimes get made, which is why we have deletion review, but the vast majority are entirely uncontroversial. Guy (Help!) 10:23, 23 December 2006 (UTC)

Eh?[edit]

I understand Your good intentions and advise You to stay as a mediator in the article's conflict, but that is not according to Wikipedia's policy. As per WP:BLOCK, banned user's (& their meatpuppets)'re allowed to edit only their own user pages; it says that any of their edits are to be reverted. That user is a sock of Afrika paprika, and one must be blind not to see it. I know, because I have been dealing with Afrika's meatpuppetry since July 2006, and he has never, ever stopped in that whole time period - half a year. He usually recognizes defeat and then says goodbye, but returns a day (or several hours) later and that's how it has always been. That's why I fiercely fought to prevent Afrika's ban; but I lost the fight because they said that he's done far too much disruption. But I have said many times that this will happen, and I was right. It's been like it for half a year and it will be like it. Thanks to my appeals, a sock-master, a very disruptive one, by the name of User:Hipi Zhdripi, has not been banned; but limited to his one account by the Arbitration Committee instead (as per my suggestion). And it has worked - hordes of meatpuppets have disappeared & Hipi is slowly on his way to becoming a productive member of the Wikimedian society (I'm proud to say he's rehabilitating). Unfortunately, as Wikipedia's blocking policy alone claims, blocking usually stirs up more anger and further disruption - it 'feeds the trolls. Do You understand what I mean? Cheers, --PaxEquilibrium 19:51, 22 December 2006 (UTC)

  • What? No, I don't actually. Not that I don't understand what feeding the trolls means, but there does seem to be a difference between the style of this and AP. Feel free to point out where I'm wrong. Guy (Help!) 21:56, 22 December 2006 (UTC)
Please, JzG, help me with this. The drama's not over jet. Please just look at an my atempt of the conversation with Pax on his own discussion board under the title "what vulgar insults?". I don't know what to do any more.
89.172.18.8 00:12, 23 December 2006 (UTC)
Do not post to Pax's user talk, since it clearly antagonises him. Try again to register an account. Guy (Help!) 10:14, 23 December 2006 (UTC)

User talk:Meisterchef[edit]

Hey, there. Looking into this user's current unblock request; did you have any particular thoughts or comment on the block? In particular, a more complete explanation of their sockpuppetry, and especially an identification of the sockmaster, would be helpful. Thanks in advance. Luna Santin 07:43, 20 December 2006 (UTC)

Looks like a sock of User:Miracleimpulse, a tremendously disruptive user (see above and Sweetest Day (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)). If you feel the user has mede credible assertions not to be the same individual, feel free to unblock, but the Talk page comment really does not inspire confidence. If not a sock, a likely meatpuppet. Or maybe I'm just a grouch. Guy (Help!) 11:04, 20 December 2006 (UTC)
Following a pretty good amount of discussion and a checkuser case, I've unblocked the user (see their user talk for a more complete explanation) -- given our prior contact, I didn't think you would object, but you have my apologies if that belief was mistaken. Let me know if you need anything. Luna Santin 02:19, 24 December 2006 (UTC)

Article on "Perimeter Mall"[edit]

I was looking up malls in the Atlanta area and it shows that you deleted the article on Perimeter Mall. I thought that was a rather unfortunate choice as it is one of the prominent malls in the area. I found it very interesting to read about the different malls in the area... and most are listed with Perimeter Mall left out. I hope it can be restored. Itsdannyg 06:20, 22 December 2006 (UTC)


--

I should add that malls are a subject covered frequently by local newspapers and are notable to the local community. I believe most reasonable people would agree that notable malls should be listed in Wikipedia.. as mentioned in the article: "List of shopping malls in the United States" http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_shopping_malls_in_the_United_States

As for Perimeter Mall, it is a landmark for the area. The Atlanta Business Chronicle which covers business news makes reference to it frequently when they are covering the area.

http://atlanta.bizjournals.com/atlanta/stories/2002/09/30/focus3.html http://atlanta.bizjournals.com/atlanta/stories/2006/02/27/focus3.html http://atlanta.bizjournals.com/atlanta/stories/2006/03/20/newscolumn1.html

If you observe the discussion and talk pages for the Listing of Shopping Malls.. you will see there is legitimate debate over the relevancy of shopping malls in Wikipedia. Clearly the deletion of a large mall from Wikipedia is subject to debate and should not be removed on a whim. Itsdannyg 07:26, 22 December 2006 (UTC)

  • Wikipedia is not a directory of malls or anything else. The article contained no evidence of non-trivial coverage in reliable secondary sources (i.e. no evidence of notability) and read as advertorial. Most of the malls should probably be deleted, since almost all of them have no evident claim to notability, but subsequent to the removal of a slew of them after a spamming campaign by General Growth properties there is now a WP:MALL proposal, on which you may wish to comment. Guy (Help!) 09:59, 22 December 2006 (UTC)

--

Your comment about "all of them having no evident claim to notability" I think shows your bias against malls. I think malls are an important part of communities these days.. for better or for worse. I know I had my fair share of experience at them this weekend with Christmas shopping. If you say Wikipedia is not a directory.. why list a directory of towns, cities, states, tv stations, businesses, or anything. What makes a local station in one town any different than another? Or some tiny town in Arkansas different than one next door in Arkansas? Almost everything fits in a directory of some kind.. you just find shopping malls insignificant for some reason. Personally, I find bicycles insignificant but to each his own. The point still stands, I still think there should have been a debate and not a deletion on a whim based on the logic on one individual. Itsdannyg 03:14, 23 December 2006 (UTC)

  • Either that or your reaction to it shows your bias towards malls. Take it to WP:MALL, but bear in mind that "all foo are inherently notable" is a statement of doctrine, not an argument from policy. Guy (Help!) 10:17, 23 December 2006 (UTC)

--

Well if you need policy... "What Wikipedia is not" is not a sufficient reason for a speedy delete: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/WP:CSD#Non-criteria

Whether it is my bias or yours is what merit debates.. which is what I have advocated from the beginning. Itsdannyg 17:39, 23 December 2006 (UTC)

  • No, that's process not policy. But no matter: I see it was reviewed only a couple of weeks back and endorsed [31]. Guy (Help!) 19:45, 23 December 2006 (UTC)

Perimeter_Mall on deletion review[edit]

An editor has asked for a deletion review of Perimeter_Mall. Since you closed the deletion discussion for (or speedy-deleted) this article, you might want to participate in the deletion review. Itsdannyg 19:17, 23 December 2006 (UTC)

Re:RFARB[edit]

Thanks for doing what needed to be done. I tried to solve it without ArbCom for close to two years, I guess it couldn't be avoided.-- Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | talk  23:05, 22 December 2006 (UTC)

  • Yes, I think you genuinely did, certainly in the RfC. I trust the RFAR will reflect this. Guy (Help!) 23:07, 22 December 2006 (UTC)
Both Ghirla and Piotrus have accepted my mediation offer. Would you like to withdraw the RFAR? DurovaCharge! 14:24, 23 December 2006 (UTC)
Great, I sincerely hope it works out. You might need your Nomex suit, though :-) Guy (Help!) 14:26, 23 December 2006 (UTC)
I have no problem with puting the ArbCom on hold and trying mediation for the fifth time (see three attempts I linked and ArbCom, and there is a fourth which Ghirla joined in the middle and left which I left out so not to clutter the page). I will try my best, but I will not be suprised if we end up back at ARBC...-- Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | talk  14:34, 23 December 2006 (UTC)
If this works you'll spare yourselves arbitration and if it doesn't work you'll be no worse off than you were before. DurovaCharge! 15:02, 23 December 2006 (UTC)
True. I certainly appreciated your effort, since you will be puting your time into helping us. As well as that of JzG. Merry XMAS to both of you :) -- Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | talk  16:26, 23 December 2006 (UTC)
I will leave it to the arbs as to whether they feel one last go round is worth it, or whether a ruling on past conduct will help matters going forward. I would not like to call it. And here I think it is Ghirla who is most likely to be the source of the problem, I think Ghirla really needs to grow a thicker skin. Guy (Help!) 16:53, 23 December 2006 (UTC)
That's why I don't appreciate your request for arbitration. Given the number of Ghirlaphobes around, it will quickly be transformed (it actually is being transformed) into a new discussion of Ghirla's fabled incivility, with Piotr's RfC ousted to the margins. --Ghirla -трёп- 17:42, 23 December 2006 (UTC)
And that's why I think ArbCom is arguably needed, to objectively settle the matter of whether these "ghirlaphobes" are real or imagined, and if real, deal with them. I really have done my best to be fair to both of you, whether or not you perceive it that way. Guy (Help!) 18:02, 23 December 2006 (UTC)

spamming[edit]

i disagree with your characterization of my actions as spamming. these were editors with whom I have collaborated in the past on the very article that was at issue and a prior deletion debate for that article. thank you. Interestingstuffadder 15:29, 23 December 2006 (UTC)

Please read more carefully. I said that linking debates on multiple talk pages may be considered spamming, and is deprecated. Guy (Help!) 16:54, 23 December 2006 (UTC)
I would refrain from editing other user's main pages except under extreme circumstances such as obvious vandalism. The link you removed from my page was not spam, as it is neither a solicitation for a commercial site, nor have I added it at multiple pages. I have put it on only one page, my own User page, to show interest in an outside project which is related to my editing here. I believe that is appropriate. Thank you. Dekkappai 17:37, 23 December 2006 (UTC)
Seems to me it was linkspam (see WP:EL). Also, I believe it was added in response to solicitation from a single-purpose account. Guy (Help!) 18:04, 23 December 2006 (UTC)
  • Linking concerned parties to a deletion debate about an article they've spoken up against deleting is hardly something I would consider spam, it's notifying concerned parties. I've not spammed, I've only attempted to be sure people who debated the article were informed of its contested status Charlam 00 19:30, 23 December 2006 (UTC)
  • No, linking all concerned parties, including those who !voted delete, is acceptable (sometimes), but notifying only those with a known view on one side of a debate is definitely frowned on. People have been blocked for it. Guy (Help!) 19:37, 23 December 2006 (UTC)

Nice[edit]

You're the man. Can watch MotD without worrying about Joe Randazzo now :) Deizio talk 22:35, 23 December 2006 (UTC)

  • Yeah, well, I thought we'd had enough drama and the philosophical discussion really belonged on his user talk by the time I came along. Guy (Help!) 23:23, 23 December 2006 (UTC)

Mark Barnette[edit]

I see that you userfied the Mark Barnette article. What will happen with The Empire Chronicles: Children of the Anunnaki which was also included in that AfD? IrishGuy talk 01:03, 24 December 2006 (UTC)

  • We have no article by that title ;-) Guy (Help!) 01:05, 24 December 2006 (UTC)
Ah. ;) IrishGuy talk 01:10, 24 December 2006 (UTC)

How does the number of overturn deletion comments affect the undeletion process.[edit]

I was looking at the List of big-bust models and performers deletion review and saw a lot of overturn comments. Does this mean the article will be restored? What is the policy here? Thanks, Fledgeling 02:51, 24 December 2006 (UTC)

  • I sincerely hope not, since none of them addresses the fundamental problem. Guy (Help!) 08:14, 24 December 2006 (UTC)

MFD[edit]

A page you created, was userfied to User:JzG/Criteria for Speedy Drama, please see Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Wikipedia:Criteria for Speedy Drama for details. Thank you, — xaosflux Talk 06:21, 24 December 2006 (UTC)

3RR[edit]

As I said on the 3RR talk page, I do not believe that I violated the letter or spirit of 3RR. However, I'll take your words into account for future situations. CJCurrie 08:36, 24 December 2006 (UTC)

  • Good. That's all you need to do. Bold, revert, discuss is the usual model :-) Guy (Help!) 08:40, 24 December 2006 (UTC)