User talk:JzG/Archive 42

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

Unprotect request for "Emerald City Supporters" article

Wikipedia used to have an article on Emerald City Supporters (ECS), which is a group of supporters of the Seattle Sounders (association) football team. The article got deleted in January 2007, the reason being cited was non-notable. That was a fair decision. Then somebody tried to add the page in August 2008 and it got deleted again, and after it was added again the same day, you deleted it and protected the page. These were also fair decisions.

Now, the circumstances have since changed, and Emerald City Supporters has become a notable group, and I'd like to ask you to unprotect the page so that I can add it. I will add an article with more information than just a stub, and will include references.

Up until this year the ECS supported the Seattle Sounders who played in the USL division one, a minor league in North America. Now the ECS supports Seattle Sounders FC, which is a new club that plays on the highest level of US/Canadian soccer, Major League Soccer (MLS). The group has been around since 2005 and now has 600 members. As a source for this number and the group's general notability I can cite this article from Seattle Times, the main spreadsheet newspaper in Seattle:

There are also a number of other references that illustrate the notability of the ECS: (in German)

I would also like to point out that a number of other supporter groups of MLS teams have articles in Wikipedia:

I would argue that many of these groups are less notable than Emerald City Supporters.

--Ludvigant (talk) 02:04, 3 April 2009 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Requests for comment/JzG3

I've filed a request for comment on your use of admin tools while involved. I regret that this has become necessary; I think you know that your response is suggested. --Abd (talk) 03:14, 3 April 2009 (UTC)

  • You are a complete waste of my limited time. I am seriously wondering if you are on the autistic spectrum, your obsession with this is beyond any rational explanation. Guy (Help!) 08:33, 3 April 2009 (UTC)
    • Just so you know, this RFC no longer has two certifiers but I have extended the 48 hours for certification until 1.10 UTC 6 April. Spartaz Humbug! 01:13, 4 April 2009 (UTC)
  • Thanks. Guy (Help!) 19:24, 4 April 2009 (UTC)
    Sorry to bother you, Guy, but I thought maybe I should let you know that some other people have certified it. Coppertwig (talk) 19:32, 4 April 2009 (UTC)
  • Oh how amazing. Dan "every link is sacred" Tobias, the perennial gadfly and borderline troll, a perfect example of the kind of people Abd has on is side. What an absolute waste of the foundation's resources that is going to be. And to think he got it certified by WP:CANVASSing, too. Oh the irony. Guy (Help!) 17:43, 5 April 2009 (UTC)


A bit overboard :P It would be better if you closed that, and then went to challenge the certification at WT:RFC. I think that you will get the same result going either way, and the second way will cause way less drama. --Enric Naval (talk) 20:21, 5 April 2009 (UTC)

  • Feel free to do just that, I am walking away from the whole mess. There's no realistic chance it will do any good at all, the problem is Abd and there's no way Abd is ever going to realise it. Guy (Help!) 21:01, 5 April 2009 (UTC)
Guy sorry I had to close that MfD. You may well be right and the RfC may back fire at Abd. But you do need to act with calmness and exemplary behaviour. A day off my do wonders. --Salix (talk): 21:52, 5 April 2009 (UTC)
Mate, I haven't the time to act with anything at all. I have $2m of projects to deliver by the end of the month and around another $2m backed up behind that. I've bought two CLARiiON SANs this year already and there's another in the works, plus I have some fiendishly difficult Bach to learn. As will be absolutely obvious to anyone who checks the (lack of) basis for the complaint, I've been close to inactive for quite a while. Guy (Help!) 11:42, 6 April 2009 (UTC)
What Bach are you working on? I just did a concert with Christ lag in Todesbanden and his mass in G major, and I'm looking forward to the B minor mass next spring. Hal peridol (talk) 16:40, 6 April 2009 (UTC)
Motets, with Singet dem Herrn being the tricky one. has details. Last Easter we did the St Matthew Passion (in the original German) with a period instrument band and Charles Medlam on gamba, it was the closest thing to a flawless concert I have ever experienced, absolutely magical. Guy (Help!) 16:54, 6 April 2009 (UTC)
Some really nice repertoire in that concert. I always enjoy singing Bach, although I sometimes think that he hated basses :) Hal peridol (talk) 11:34, 7 April 2009 (UTC)
He must have hated choirs. St Matthew's Passion alternates between chorals that bore me to death and pieces where you have to start on a random pitch, shut up a few seconds later, start on another random pitch etc. --Hans Adler (talk) 13:03, 7 April 2009 (UTC)
I think he loved choirs, he gave them things to sing which are thrilling and challenging. Did he hate basses? I don't think so. But I am a baritone so I don't have a problem with the occasional F# or G :-) Guy (Help!) 19:35, 8 April 2009 (UTC)
Ich will den Kreuzstab gerne tragen, Cantata BWV 56. How could he have hated basses? Mathsci (talk) 22:50, 8 April 2009 (UTC)

Please refactor

(refactored out concerns about the comments above) Ikip (talk) 11:37, 9 April 2009 (UTC)

It would reflect well on Guy if he refactored the comment. It would reflect really well on you if you didn't badger him and break into friendly conversations with demands and outrage that you've already expressed in various other forums. MastCell Talk 19:07, 9 April 2009 (UTC)
And it would reflecte even better on Abd if he showed some signs of just occasionaly accepting a consensus that goes against him. But he doesn't Ever. And somehow this is always the fault of everybody else. Guy (Help!) 08:50, 10 April 2009 (UTC)
My apologies Mastcell. I refactored out the comment, which I hope helps, and created a new subsection. I didn't mean to ruin the flow of the conversation. Ikip (talk) 11:52, 10 April 2009 (UTC)

Site to blacklist?

Hello Guy, as far as I remember (from the "Cold Fusion" affaire) you're also an administrator on meta.

I noticed that on there's a link that's frequently used as source, Now, I checked both the site and its record on, and noticed that it's a private site, with no reliability; further is sort of Bible-spamming site.

Since a lot of religion-related articles use that website as only source I report it to you for you discuss on meta whether keep it or insert in in the meta blacklist. Thanks for your attention :) SERGIUS (CATUS NIGER) 19:59, 13 April 2009 (UTC)

  • Good grief - on the fornt page it talks about "dioceses", clearly not a site with any form of peer-review or fact checking! Guy (Help!) 21:12, 13 April 2009 (UTC)
  • I looked osme more, I don't know what the meta community can do to help but I have lodged a request. Guy (Help!) 14:09, 14 April 2009 (UTC)
What problem with "dioceses" would fact-checking identify? Captain Nemo III (talk) 20:42, 14 April 2009 (UTC)
It's a grammar flame, I went to a thousand-year-old school. Still can't type for toffee though. Guy (Help!) 21:08, 14 April 2009 (UTC)
The school I attended was only about 500 years old, so I am unable to spot the grammar error related to "dioceses". Could you enlighten me? Captain Nemo III (talk) 21:29, 14 April 2009 (UTC)
Apart from the grammar flame, which I am not entitled to talk about being not a native English speaker, the whole site is unreliable, Nemo. I wouldn't adopt it as reliable source. SERGIUS (CATUS NIGER) 09:11, 15 April 2009 (UTC)
The point I was making here was that Guy appeared to be making a judgment about the content of the site based on an unexplained "grammar error". Perhaps the site is unreliable and should be blacklisted but if any action is to be taken, it should be based on facts, not unsupported "OMG" assesments Captain Nemo III (talk) 16:12, 15 April 2009 (UTC)
Nemo, Guy is an intelligent person and I am sure that he would never file a site for a ban according on his own grammatical idiosyncrasies; rather he would do because he would be finding its content partly or highly unreliable. SERGIUS (CATUS NIGER) 16:34, 15 April 2009 (UTC)
Correct. I spent about half an hour Googling the site owner and apparent sole author, I found no evidence that he is considered an authority by anybody whose judgment we would accept. It's apparently just a personal site. A large one, and one with an ambition, but a personal site nonetheless. I don't see what we would find there that could not be referenced from a better source. Guy (Help!) 16:49, 15 April 2009 (UTC)
Agreed. Maybe finding better sources would be more difficult, but nobody is forced to contribute to Wikipedia, as we are always told :) SERGIUS (CATUS NIGER) 22:17, 15 April 2009 (UTC)

I wrote also on meta, Guy: there's also A site with a lot of advertising and substantially a personal site, not reliable (though used as source in SERGIUS (CATUS NIGER) 08:55, 16 April 2009 (UTC)

I left a note at Meta suggesting that blacklisting should be declined - I appreciate the concerns about this site as a source (even though I don't get the "dioceses"-problem, I would have written "bispedømmer" myself ;) but I do not think we could or even should blacklist sites like these. Regards, Finn Rindahl (talk) 17:28, 17 April 2009 (UTC)

Notice for Wikipedia:Editor_assistance/Requests

Hi, I see that the requested notice has been posted at Wikipedia:Editor_assistance/Requests/Archive_45 rather than Wikipedia:Editor_assistance/Requests. I wonder if you can fix that? Thanks. Jezhotwells (talk) 17:45, 14 April 2009 (UTC)


You invoke BLP here. I thought the precedent and practice was that BLP doesn't apply to editors, or else those editing under their real names overtly get an unfair advantage on Wikipedia versus those who are totally anon, or semi such as us? rootology (C)(T) 13:11, 15 April 2009 (UTC)

  • WP:BLP means we should be careful in handling any information in respect of identifiable individuals. I don't believe there would be any legal distinction between defamation in different namespaces, though obviously that is my conjecture rather than anything tested in court - happily, our enforcement of WP:BLP has thus far avoided any need to defend the policy in court. If you look at the underlying rationale for WP:BLP it is pretty clear: Wikipedia is not evil, we are not here to hurt people. You'll note that I have several times proposed renaming Jon Awbrey's accounts due to the immense weight of adverse comment here about him. Some people are psychologically unsuited to Wikipedia's way of working, that does not make them bad people, and it's not our place to enforce forever a requirement that every barb aimed at them is immortalised. Mr Haines appears to em to have become embroiled in some kind of dispute, and to have reacted badly (I have only looked into its connection to OTRS, thus far). The complaint to OTRS was about some rather trenchant comments on his talk page, which appear to have been dealt with. That is a good result, we should always be fair. The history is there if needed, and the Mantanmoreland - Bagley dispute unquestionably establishes the principle that one party being in the wrong does not make the other party right - sometimes the right response is "a plague on both your houses". Does that answer your question? Guy (Help!) 13:23, 15 April 2009 (UTC)
I hope you don't mind if I comment here, Guy. In answer to Rootology: I don't know the details of this situation, but Guy's answer appears to me to show good judgement, wisdom and good understanding of policy. BLP applies on talk pages too, (although in practice there may be slightly more flexibility allowed there; not everything-goes, for sure; similarly with copyright rules applying on talk pages) and applies for all people, not only those about whom there are Wikipedia articles. "Editors must take particular care adding biographical material about a living person to any Wikipedia page." and "This policy applies equally to biographies of living persons and to biographical material about living persons on other pages." (WP:BLP) In my opinion, pseudonyms such as "Coppertwig" are real names, reputations built under those names are real reputations, and the BLP rules should protect all ordinary Wikipedian editors too, but in practice people use the NPA and civility policies and don't tend to apply BLP to normal talk page editing discussions. In my opinion, if NPA is liberally applied it's pretty much the same result anyway. The underlying principle, which I feel Guy is upholding here, is that we try not to harm people. Coppertwig (talk) 15:28, 15 April 2009 (UTC)
I reckon that this is a case where a snowball of outrage has been stirred at WR while Wikipedia goes about its business at the usual slow pace. Coren confirms my view of what happened in this case, which is nice bit not directly related to Rootology's comment above. But yes, we should be small-c conservative in respect of living individuals; our aim should always be fairness, even to those who don't fit in. We're not required to indefinitely tolerate people who can't work with others, but neither is that a reason for putting the boot in or standing idly by while others do the same. So, we should say to AH that we're sorry he can't manage to fit in, no hard feelings but he's worn out his welcome "Show the door to vandals, trolls and wiki-anarchists" as Larry Sanger put it. Guy (Help!) 15:59, 15 April 2009 (UTC)
I have no knowledge of the basis for a block in this situation, but I agree with you about how: "Wikipedia's hope for banned users is that they will leave Wikipedia or the affected area with their pride and dignity intact, whether permanently or for the duration of their ban. As such, it is inappropriate to bait banned users, or to take advantage of their ban to mock them." (WP:Banning) Coppertwig (talk) 16:12, 15 April 2009 (UTC)

Wrong end of stick?

Hi Guy. Here is the diff [1], where Coren blocked User:Alastair Haines because of the OTRS ticket. He also blocked User:SkyWriter at the same time [2], because Daniel [3] and he mistakenly thought he had sent the ticket. SkyWriter was unblocked a few days later, with apologies from Coren for the error [4]. I hope this clarifies things. Cheers, Mathsci (talk) 14:19, 15 April 2009 (UTC)

(BTW, this page inspired me to get back to editing Bach on WP.) Mathsci (talk) 14:24, 15 April 2009 (UTC)
Yup, I caught up with it, thanks. I deliberately tried to work it out from first principles, since that seemed to me to be the best way of spotting whether a mistake had been made. I concur with Coren's block, and I think the best way of preventing further problems is to simply protect AH's talk page as that seems to be the locus of the contended edits. Guy (Help!) 16:00, 15 April 2009 (UTC)

AFI's 100 Years... 100 Laughs

Hi, I saw your comment regarding the copyright of this list here. Did you ever got another response to that OTRS ticket? Otherwise it does look like a copyvio. Garion96 (talk) 00:14, 19 April 2009 (UTC)


Hey JzG, did you ever get my email? Khoikhoi 21:45, 19 April 2009 (UTC)

Retirement notice

Hi. I was wanting to ask you a question. I see a retirement notice on your talk page, but yet judging by your contributions, you're still active on Wikipedia. If you're not retired, why would there be such a notice on this talk page. Just curious. Thanks. —Mythdon t/c 05:23, 20 April 2009 (UTC)

  • Read it a bit more carefully. Guy (Help!) 08:16, 20 April 2009 (UTC)


Go to WP:RFAR and add your statement. Jehochman Talk 15:48, 20 April 2009 (UTC)

  • Dunno if you noticed but Newyorkbrad asked you question in the above. Spartaz Humbug! 05:36, 22 April 2009 (UTC)

Please trim your statement on requests for arbitration

Thank you for making a statement in an Arbitration application on requests for arbitration. We ask all participants and commentators to limit the size of their initial statements to 500 words. Please trim your statement accordingly. If the case is accepted, you will have the opportunity to present more evidence. Neat, concisely presented statements are much more likely to be understood and to influence the decisions of the Arbitrators.

For the Arbitration Committee. KnightLago (talk) 19:08, 20 April 2009 (UTC)

Meta admins and discussions

I've asked here whether I've found the right links to the meta discussions and actions regarding the Abd and JzG arbitration request. I'm asking the other parties and the two meta admins (here and on meta), if they can confirm this. Carcharoth (talk) 20:07, 21 April 2009 (UTC)

Someone imitating you?

Check out this edit to User talk:Tennis expert, which uses your signature. I assume it isn't you logged out considering the incorrect timestamp, incorrect block/ban distinction and the fact that the editor in question has neither been blocked nor banned. I've reverted it, but I thought I'd let you know all the same. —/Mendaliv//Δ's/ 22:39, 21 April 2009 (UTC)

  • Definitely not. I don't recognise the IP, I'd be content for a CU to check it, but I work for a big firm and also use O2 mobile broadband so a false positive would be possible I guess. WP:RBI, I should say. Guy (Help!) 22:42, 21 April 2009 (UTC)

EddieSegoura Ban Appeal

For your information, a discussion has been opened at WP:AN#EddieSegoura Ban Appeal regarding an issue you may be involved in. Your comments are invited. Thank you! For the Arbitration Committee, Hersfold (t/a/c) 01:19, 22 April 2009 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Abd and JzG

An Arbitration case involving you has been opened, and is located here. Please add any evidence you may wish the Arbitrators to consider to the evidence sub-page, Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Abd and JzG/Evidence. Please submit your evidence within one week, if possible. You may also contribute to the case on the workshop sub-page, Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Abd and JzG/Workshop.

On behalf of the Arbitration Committee, Hersfold (t/a/c) 02:06, 25 April 2009 (UTC)

Someone imitating you (again)?

Someone on "The Wikipedia Forum" made a post under "JzG" that seems like spoofing to me. Can you confirm? Cool Hand Luke 18:43, 26 April 2009 (UTC)