| Revision as of 18:29, 4 January 2007 editJzG (talk | contribs)Edit filter managers, Autopatrolled, Extended confirmed users, Page movers, New page reviewers, Pending changes reviewers, Rollbackers155,107 editsm Reverted edits by Barberio (talk) to last version by JzG← Previous edit | Latest revision as of 10:01, 12 February 2023 edit undoMalnadachBot (talk | contribs)11,637,095 editsm Fixed Lint errors. (Task 12)Tag: AWB | ||
| Line 1: | Line 1: | ||
| ] | |||
| {| class="messagebox" style="background: AntiqueWhite;" | |||
| |- | |||
| |This talk page is '''automatically archived''' by ]. Any sections older than '''7''' days are automatically archived to ''']'''. Some may be manually archived earlier than that, if no further action is required or productive debate is at an end. | |||
| |- | |||
| |} | |||
| {{Administrator}} | |||
| __NOTOC__ | |||
| ==JzG essay== | |||
| {| align="right" width="260px" class="toc" |- | |||
| http://www.chapmancentral.co.uk/Me_and_Wikipedia | |||
| |- | |||
| |---- | |||
| !align="center"|]<br/>] | |||
| ---- | |||
| |- | |||
| | | |||
| *] | |||
| *] | |||
| *] | |||
| *] | |||
| *] | |||
| *] | |||
| *] | |||
| *] | |||
| *] | |||
| *] | |||
| *], August 2006 | |||
| *], September 2006 | |||
| *] | |||
| *] | |||
| *] | |||
| *] | |||
| *] | |||
| *] | |||
| *] | |||
| ---- | |||
| Don't let the trolls push you out of here. We need you.--] 15:28, 21 August 2007 (UTC) | |||
| ]<br> | |||
| ] | |||
| |} | |||
| '''Guy Chapman? He's ]''' | |||
| ---- | |||
| Thank you to everybody for messages of support, and to JoshuaZ for stepping up to the plate. I have written about what happened at ]. | |||
| ---- | |||
| <center>'''Read This First'''</center> | |||
| '''If you need urgent admin help''' please go to ]. To stop a vandal, try ]. For general help why not try the ]? If you need me personally and it's urgent you may ], I read all messages even if I do not reply. If next time I log on is soon enough, '''''' to start a new conversation. | |||
| :Thank you, Guy, for that excellent essay.<br>Don't let the bastards grind you down. Cheers, ] 17:00, 21 August 2007 (UTC) | |||
| This page may contain trolling. Some of it might even be from me, but never assume trolling where a misplaced sense of humour might explain things. '''This user posts using a ]'''. | |||
| Excellent essay. Please come back when you've cleared your head. . --] 03:25, 22 August 2007 (UTC) | |||
| Note to self: ''']''', Esperanza admin coaching. | |||
| ---- | |||
| * ] | |||
| * <span class="plainlinks">] (] • ] • • • • )</span> | |||
| Indeed, excellent essay. I agree with almost all your points, but - mostly, as technicality - I disagree with 'The Wild West'. ] :). PS. You know, I am stalked by my own 'Rfwoolf'. And the ArbCom has done nothing to stop him. I do wonder if such users will bring the project down... PS2. Please come back, don't leave us, yadda yadda - we had our differences but I believe we need people like you in the project. Hope to see you around,--<sub><span style="border:1px solid #228B22;padding:1px;">]|]</span></sub> 00:33, 4 September 2007 (UTC) | |||
| <!-- BEGIN WERDNABOT ARCHIVAL CODE --><!-- This page is automatically archived by Werdnabot-->{{User:Werdnabot/Archiver/Linkhere}} <!--This is an empty template, but transcluding it counts as a link, meaning Werdnabot is directed to this page - DO NOT SUBST IT --><!--Werdnabot-Archive Age-7 DoUnreplied-Yes Target-User talk:JzG/Archive-{{CURRENTMONTHABBREV}}-{{CURRENTYEAR}}--><!--END WERDNABOT ARCHIVAL CODE--> | |||
| May I suggest you restore the 7000+ edits to your talk page? As you've returned to editing, it really should not stay deleted. ] 16:24, 24 August 2007 (UTC) | |||
| ==NLP COI notifications== | |||
| Hi Guy. I'm still not sure about what should be done about COI issues on the NLP article. I seem to be very much on my own on that article and its very hard to edit there without feeling that straight reporting is being resisted very strongly by an NLP provider company plus associates. They (especially Comaze) are now trying to make it look like I'm close to or actually throwing personal attacks. I don't see how they can claim such a thing. I looked at the personal attack policy and I see to be nowhere near attack. They seem to be presenting most of the critical facts - but now the work is towards reframing NLP as some kind of "soft science". The only excuse they find for doing so is their own unsourced OR. They are completely against any succinct statement of what NLP does in reality - and they don't want to clearly present the actual reasons for why scientists and others are concerned about NLP's promotion as a science. They are all fighting against me and even user Fainties supports the rather OR frames of Comaze and the IP numbers there. I heard mediation is an option but mediating just myself against a group of them seems a little strange. Comaze seems to be agianst clearly presenting his known COI on the ANI page and of course is refusing to leave the NLP articles alone. If I'm doing anything out of line please specify the error. Thanks - Ding dong merrily etc... ] 05:27, 25 December 2006 (UTC) | |||
| Hi again Guy. Just a bit more on developments on the NLP article. A new editor (Doc pato) has turned up and you may want to assess a possible COI there. I actually feel things can be handled there relatively easily there now. Comaze and certain numbers are accusing me of attacking them (on my talkpage) because I reiterated your message. I calmed things down by simply posting the link and referring to the right policy. Again - if you think I have edited or handled other editors wrongly then point me to the relevant policy. I'm happy to work alone on the opening to present it as balanced as possible according to Misplaced Pages Lead Section recommendations - though I have also made it known on my edit summary that non-COI collaboration is desirable. I imagine as before - key issues will be deleted from the lead on a fairly regular basis - but I'll keep calmly and flexibly trying to sort the problem if it occurs. Apart from that I'll also keep an eye out for OR and selective editing. Who knows - maybe the article will be clear and balanced one day. ] 09:28, 29 December 2006 (UTC) | |||
| * This really is just a guy that should get back to work or he won't be able to afford his Volvo payments. ] 03:20, 25 August 2007 (UTC) | |||
| Please, do not be fooled by yet another sock of . His edits are the same, his language is the same, and his arguements are the same, if not politer. ] 16:55, 29 December 2006 (UTC) | |||
| :* Heh! Funny. But I paid cash, as I always do... <b>]</b> <small>(])</small> 10:41, 25 August 2007 (UTC) | |||
| :: Addiction to editing on Wikiulosia will likely cause the loss of job and family. The "me disease" is harmful. ] 14:09, 26 August 2007 (UTC) | |||
| : Politer, yes, which is why I have not yet blocked as a Headley sock. Reasonableness was never Headley's strong point, as I recall. Which means either he's learned (in which case is there still a problem?) or this is not Headley. I recommend "trust but verify" here for a while anyway. NLP promotion is a problem. <b>]</b> <small>(])</small> 17:04, 29 December 2006 (UTC) | |||
| :::JzG, I totally *get* where you are coming from, but, selfishly, I will MISS YOU around... --] 21:11, 22 September 2007 (UTC) | |||
| :: Politeness would be the secondary issue. The primary issue is POV warrioring, distortion of authors meanings, and deleting bona fide cited information. | |||
| ::*Like where he removes the cited quote indicating "the effectiveness of NLP therapy undertaken in authentic clinical contexts of trained practitioners has not yet been properly investigated.", because it conflicts with his POV that it has been properly investigated and it had failed. | |||
| ::* he moves the context of Einlich's statement regarding the popularity of NLP, so it only refers to an ambiguous "cult-status". | |||
| ::* to present them in the most cartoonish way as possible. (Same Headleydown style from ages back) | |||
| ::* he removes information regarding mental health bodies that use NLP | |||
| ::* he is altering the more accurate "Some reviews have characterized NLP as mass-marketed" (because some have not) to simply the definitive "Reviews have characterized NLP as mass-marketed ]" (implicit all). | |||
| ::* he does the same thing. Changing the balanced "NLP is considered by some scientists as fraudulent" to definitive "NLP is considered by scientists as fraudulent." (implicit all). | |||
| ::* he removes the cited notion that NLP might be untestable, because it conflicts with the POV NLP has been tested and has failed. | |||
| ::* He removes technique descriptions to replace them with his own cartoonish "imaginary magic circle" copy. (Same Headleydown copy from ages back). | |||
| ::*ad infinitum | |||
| == Regarding deletions... == | |||
| ::Regarding NLP promotion, I'm a little confused. As the article stands: | |||
| ::*While there's abundance of quoted research reviews (to the point of bloating the entry) reporting the POV NLP is unvalidated and doesn't work, as of yet, there are <u>no</u> research reviews listed in the main article reporting that NLP techniques may have some merit (despite the fact there are many to list). | |||
| ::*And despite the fact there are a number of media sources and magazines praising NLP, as of yet in the article, none of these are listed and instead only journalists who are critical are included. | |||
| ::Therefore, I'm a bit curious as to how the article is somehow promotional? While I understand you may have had the view that the general unorganized loose body of techniques and operational presuppositions of NLP is somehow a some sort of a "cult", one might consider that if BBC allows it's founder's and trainers to use/demonstrate/promote it's methodologies on prime time television shows (Paul Mckenna/Bandler/Derren Brown), perhaps the whole NLP=CULT view might be somewhat of a fringe POV. Granted, this is a view to which you are perfectly entitled, but to present this as a "fact" which is being "obscured", is perhaps an overstatement of a particular POV, generally promoted by fundamentalists of other -isms.] 22:06, 29 December 2006 (UTC) | |||
| (I hope I type in this correctly in the correct space without deleting anything) | |||
| I don't understand this insistance that the NLP article is promotional either. I agree that the parts on its principles have been afflicted by jargon, but the main thrust of the article is to make it abundantly clear that there is not a shred of scientific evidence in support of it. This is quoted ad nauseum, the editors having to take refuge in long and exact quotes as a defence against POV from AlanBarnet. If anything the article is biassed in the other direction. If I knew how to create a link I could point to where AlanBarnet deliberately put in inaccurate citations in the manipulation section to the effect that 3 reputable scientists stated NLP was a cult in a matter where the true substance of the opinions of the scientists had already been fully discussed. AlanBarnet has been repeatedly asked to provide reputable sources to support his contention that NLP is a cult and was eventually, on his talk page, reduced to citing you as a source. ] 00:54, 2 January 2007 (UTC) | |||
| Well I have not written it myself, since I'm not neutral perhaps, but I asked for my friends to open an account an I started to wirte something but that was deleted, an then I asked for professional help. Of course writing about family is a bad idea, but is it forbidden? And regarding the deletion of a talk page today that WAS a misstake, I have problem with my connection and I typed while the test was marked and I couldn't restore. OK, sorry, is that fixed?? | |||
| I just kindly ask you to help me to keep the pages (two of those that we are debating), I have collected so much info to my friends who have helped me and anyone else can offcourse change the page if you like!!--NGL 14:59, 15 September 2007 (UTC) <small><span class="autosigned">—Preceding ] comment added by ] (] • ]) </span></small><!-- Template:Unsigned --> | |||
| * See the message on your talk page. <b>]</b> <small>(])</small> 17:44, 15 September 2007 (UTC) | |||
| Found it. | |||
| The point is the fact that most of the previous citations for saying NLP was a cult had already been shown to be fake as was extensively discussed in Talk. (the only one of the total of 9 citations given which actually accused NLP of being a cult was Protopriest Novopashin.] 22:17, 3 January 2007 (UTC)) The opinions of the three scientists were extensively discussed in Talk. AlanBarnet refused to provide an exact quote and context for this claim and only provided the quote (which doesn't support it) long after someone else had already provided it. The point I'm making is that he's not editing seriously at all. He's just playing games which result in alot of extra work for everyone else and a distorted article. ] 17:35, 3 January 2007 (UTC) | |||
| == Oops == | |||
| :Here Fainites - I think this may help . Here is the statement that I used to present that information “Both Sharpley and Elich et al. conclude that NLP is akin to a cult and may be nothing more than a psychological fad”. (Eisner 2000p158). I already explained that I deliberately kept the cult issue out of the lead section because I am as yet unsure of how to present it. . It does seem to me that already some verifiable and reliable sources have been removed from the article on the basis that they don't contain the statement "NLP is a cult". There is a conference article that states NLP is a psychocult for example - written by a researcher and Russian archpriest for a cultic studies conference. Clearly there is a cultic issue. I have some solutions for the oversized article that I presented on the NLP talkpage under the title of "Cleanup taskforce issues". ] 06:30, 2 January 2007 (UTC) | |||
| I didn't see your edits, until I went through them again. Well, I'm deleting ''all'' '''Bold text'''the external links until it can be figured out what is going on, and until notability for the individual articles established. I think the individual articles should just be speedied. ] 23:14, 25 August 2007 (UTC) | |||
| == For the record == | |||
| * G11 is your friend :-) <b>]</b> <small>(])</small> 23:18, 25 August 2007 (UTC) | |||
| **Oh, thanks, just what I was looking for. ] 23:21, 25 August 2007 (UTC) | |||
| ==Joy, joy, joy!!!== | |||
| My recent remark on ANI wasn't directed to you, but to a Certain Person who tends to show up everywhere to attack people who disagree with a Certain Other Person. Happy new year! ] 15:57, 31 December 2006 (UTC) | |||
| Truly happy to see you back and supplying your usual straight talk. ;-) Take care, ] 01:58, 26 August 2007 (UTC) | |||
| * Ooh, drama :o) <b>]</b> <small>(])</small> 16:01, 31 December 2006 (UTC) | |||
| :Aye, rock on! ] 04:00, 26 August 2007 (UTC) | |||
| **Yep :) and of course I swiftly got a snarky response for making the above comment. Meta-drama, anyone? ] 10:16, 2 January 2007 (UTC) | |||
| ::Ah, ditto! ''']]''' 20:41, 26 August 2007 (UTC) | |||
| :::I would appreciate it if you would both quit playing this little game. JzG, do you really want to revive that fight? I attacked nobody, and I think that both of you should quit the insinuations. ] 11:14, 2 January 2007 (UTC) | |||
| :::: Revive what fight? The fight between Fresheneesz and consensus shows no sign of ever having abated. He can shout until he's blue in the face, the consensus will remain that non-notable subjects do not get included, for reasons of policy as explained at ]. As I have suggested before, anyone who thinks that they are an inclusionist should spend a few hours at ] (a.k.a. "The Firehose Of Crap"). There are no deletionists, just different degrees of inclusionism. Nor is this an inclusionism issue anyway - Jeff Raymond has probably the lowest inclusion standards on the project and I have no great trouble getting along with him, because he works the Wiki way instead of the disruptive way. Disruptive behaviour is... disruptive. We don't need it. If someone loses a debate, they have to learn to get over it. MONGO is showing the way here, he has been amazingly philosophical about a case which went against him despite widespread support for him (much wider than Fresh ever managed to find). <b>]</b> <small>(])</small> 12:01, 2 January 2007 (UTC) | |||
| :::::JzG, you should know by now what I'm talking about. Radiant insinuated I'm "attack(ing) people", when in fact I have attacked no one. Fresheneesz has nothing to do with this - my objection is to Radiant's insinuations about '''me'''. I object to the charge that I am attacking people just because I show up in a debate involving Fresheneesz. I suggest you both stop accusing me of attacks. You are both experienced admins and should know better. ] 12:10, 2 January 2007 (UTC) | |||
| :::::*The problem with both you and Fresh is that you are entirely unable or unwilling to see the other side of issues. Note that in this thread you accuse me and JZG of "playing this little game", fighting, and insinuating - all of which are attacks. ] 12:43, 2 January 2007 (UTC) | |||
| :::::::So my quote that you are "playing this little game" or "insinuating" something is considered a "personal attack" - but your baseless accusation that I'm "attacking people" is not? Is this not a double standard, Radiant? Now I'm asking again, please stop. I attacked nobody. ] 18:10, 2 January 2007 (UTC) | |||
| :::::*ATren, until you pitched in I didn't even know who the supposed parties were (although there were only a couple of possibilities, it's true). Fresh has been sanctioned by ArbCom for disrupting policy pages. That's a fact. ArbCom did this after an extensive review, with plenty of participation and input. Fresh put his side of the case, and lost the argument. He needs to put that behind him and move on. Supporting him in creating pages which make snide remarks about "deletionists" - a class of editor which objectively probably does not exist, since there are no cited examples of editors whose sole involvement with the project is deleting content rather than creating anything, is merely helping him to dig his own hole. There are legitimate Wikiphilosophical debates about the criteria for inclusion, but there is very substantial support for the idea that Misplaced Pages is an ''encyclopaedia'' not a ''directory'', and the crucial difference between the two is notability, albeit that people disagree on what constitutes notability (and even that is settling towards the current definition proposed by Uncle G). "Destroying information" and "destroying content" are remarks almost exclusively used by ]. Fresh's reaction to being told this, by just about everybody of any standing in the project, was to create a page essentially equivalent to "why I was right all along despite the fact that nobody agreed with me". As ever, with Fresh, he creates a locus for perpetuating the dispute rather than acting to resolve it. It's how things work on Usenet, but not here. And yes, all of us get sucked into that mindset from time to time, which is why I userfied the thing instead of nuking it. <b>]</b> <small>(])</small> 13:23, 2 January 2007 (UTC) | |||
| ::::::I'm not getting into the Fresheneesz debate here, because it's irrelevant to Radiant's original comment above. I don't know what you knew or didn't know about who he was talking about, but ''I knew'', and you should know by now that I will respond whenever other editors spread lies about me. And the "attacking people" quote is a lie. I've attacked nobody. ] 18:16, 2 January 2007 (UTC) | |||
| ::::::: You really ''really'' need to stop calling every difference of interpretation a ''lie''. It doesn't help in any way whatsoever, all it does is reduce the chances of anyone taking your concerns seriously. <b>]</b> <small>(])</small> 19:03, 2 January 2007 (UTC) | |||
| == Finished your redux for you == | |||
| I'm not going to respond anymore to this. Radiant, I disagree with your calling my actions "attacks", let's leave it at that and agree to disagree. Guy, feel free to delete the whole thread. ] 19:44, 2 January 2007 (UTC) | |||
| : No, there is an important point here which I think you have failed to grasp. It was at the root of Husnock's problems which led to his RFAr. It is this: if a remark is perceived by its target as an attack, you should give serious thought to the possibility that it could legitimately be construed as such - ''however it was intended''. Linguistic and circumstantial differences mean that a remark made in good faith may be taken amiss by another editor. To compound that by saying that such an interpretation is a ''lie'' is not in the least bit helpful. My experience has been that the vast majority of differences can be settled either by discussion or by agreeing to differ. You will be aware that you and I have failed to reach such an accommodation. Seems that the same applies with you and Radiant. Now, that may be down to Radiant and Me, but it may not. We interact with a lot of users - probably some orders of magnitude more than you do - and we seem to have long-running problems with only a few of them. I would be the very last person to suggest that I am perfect or anywhere close, but you really ought to give some consideration to the possibility that your style of interaction with others - and even more so Fresh's - may also be a cause of friction. That's all I meant. Doesn't mean anybody is right or wrong here, but it does mean that the style of interaction is not moving towards resolving the problem, more towards escalating it. I'm really glad to hear that you intend to let it drop. Hopefully that ''will'' be the end of it. You may depend on this: Radiant is here to build a great encyclopaedia. Radiant does an enormous amount of work to help that process along. Perfect? I don't think either of us would claim so, but at least worth listening to with at least an open mind. Fresh has a big lesson to learn, and it's this: sometimes when a lot of people tell you that you are wrong, it's because you ''are'' wrong. Anyway, as you say, enough of this crap. It's a new year, maybe a new start. <b>]</b> <small>(])</small> 20:22, 2 January 2007 (UTC) | |||
| ::Look, I am not Fresheneesz. I happen to agree with some of his sentiments, that's all, and I made some ''polite'' comments in response to people who were accusing him of attacks. I attacked nobody in this debate, and yet when I try to defend myself against the insinuation that I am "attacking people", '''I'm''' made to look like the argumentative one. It's quite simple: if you feel '''I've''' attacked someone, please ] that it wasn't my ''intent'' and point out the offending diff so that I may defend myself and/or correct the wording. What you ''shouldn't'' do is make sarcastic remarks about me "attacking everyone" without a shred of evidence to back the claim, which is exactly what Radiant did here. That's all. I don't care who Radiant is, or how much he's done for the project - in this particular case he is either misunderstanding or misrepresenting what happened. If you can't accept that, Guy, then we will continue this pointless argument. ] 20:33, 2 January 2007 (UTC) | |||
| ::ATren, as an outside observer who has never had contact with you, I can only observe that you appear to me to be belligerent and argumentative in your dealings with other Wikipedians. I urge you to step back and find a less confrontational manner in your comments. -- '''<font color="navy">]</font>''' 00:00, 3 January 2007 (UTC) | |||
| :::Please show me specifically what edits are belligerent and argumentative. Really, I'd like to know what qualifies as "belligerence"? Did I accuse anybody of "attacking people"? Seriously, if you are going to make that sort of accusation, I'd appreciate specifics. ] 00:21, 3 January 2007 (UTC) | |||
| ::::ATren, I know you're not Fresheneesz. But you ''are'' being aggressive in support of behaviour by Fresheneesz of a kind that has already seen him sanctioned by ArbCom once. As for diffs, if your first reaction had been to go to the original complainant and ask them the same question (but not beliligerently), then we would not even be ''having'' this conversation. Fresh caused a problem, we fixed it after a brief debate, and the best thing to do would have been to go quietly about your business. If you really want to go around picking fights with anyone who opposes Fresh, on present evidence you are going to have a lot of discussions which are variants on this one. Probably not a good use of your time, all in all. If you genuinely can't see what in your recent behaviour is counted as belligerent, then you may have a much bigger problem. <b>]</b> <small>(])</small> 00:26, 3 January 2007 (UTC) | |||
| :::::For your information, Guy, I , immediately and not belligerently, on his talk page. His response was to as a personal attack (???) and then post a . If Radiant had ''responded'' to my concern instead of deleting it, then yes, we wouldn't be having this conversation. | |||
| :::::Furthermore, last time I checked, engaging in a debate in defense of an editor (or, more precisely, his essay) should not be grounds for charges of personal attacks. Fresheneesz has written much that I have '''not''' defended, but this essay did have some good points ''in my opinion'' and that's why I defended it. I was certainly not the only one - several other respected editors defended the essay ''and its author'' on the deletion page. ] 01:03, 3 January 2007 (UTC) | |||
| You probably lost interest, but just in case ] is finished and sorted. ] | ] 20:30, 27 August 2007 (UTC) | |||
| :::::: If you think that was not belligerent, then one of use doesn't know what the word means. <b>]</b> <small>(])</small> 09:40, 3 January 2007 (UTC) | |||
| :::::::This coming from an editor who regularly tells others to fuck off. But whatever, I'm done with it. ] 17:47, 3 January 2007 (UTC) | |||
| :::::::: Not ''regularly'', just occasionally. When I think they really ought to - well, fuck off. But you miss the point: I'm not the one claiming that I'm not being belligerent. <b>]</b> <small>(])</small> 18:50, 3 January 2007 (UTC) | |||
| == ] == | |||
| ==]== | |||
| I recreated this article with the copyvio issues corrected. Please let me know if you see any problems with it. ] 21:29, 31 December 2006 (UTC) | |||
| * Looks fine to me. I recommend you merge the others and check the contribs of ] for the covers, which should be fair-use (I didn't speedy them as I was pretty confident you'd make an article). <b>]</b> <small>(])</small> 21:32, 31 December 2006 (UTC) | |||
| ::Shouldn't these AfD's: | |||
| ::] | |||
| ::] | |||
| ::be closed, too? The nominator, ], has been blocked for repeatedly trying to disrupt AfD's. ] 22:44, 31 December 2006 (UTC) | |||
| * Nothing stopping you from doing that, but I still recommend a merge. <b>]</b> <small>(])</small> 23:01, 31 December 2006 (UTC) | |||
| ** I'm not an admin, I don't think I can close an AfD. Can I? ] 23:14, 31 December 2006 (UTC) | |||
| ::* Sure ,if it's uncontroversial and doesn't require the admin tools. Admins are just editors with delete buttons in that respect. <b>]</b> <small>(])</small> 23:18, 31 December 2006 (UTC) | |||
| ::: Nobody's going to object, even though I participated in the discussion? ] 23:35, 31 December 2006 (UTC) | |||
| :::: Wouldn't have thought so. Point them here if they do. <b>]</b> <small>(])</small> 23:38, 31 December 2006 (UTC) | |||
| ::::: OK, I think I got the templates right on the close, finally! Enough of this, time to go get a beer and watch some ] football.... ] 00:24, 1 January 2007 (UTC) | |||
| Hi JzG, | |||
| Glad to see you are back! While I realize that this may not be the best time for this, and the personal pain that this page has caused you, there is an ] running amok on ] making personal attacks and generally making a mess of the article. I tried the ArbCom enforcement board, but an admin was unwilling to block as the ] has made a few minor edits (mostly unnecessary capitalization or wikilinks) in other articles. As you are very familiar with the editing history of the page, I would be very interested to have your opinion on it, however, I would understand if you do not wish to visit this page again. Thanks, ] 15:06, 28 August 2007 (UTC) | |||
| :Thanks! ] 15:38, 28 August 2007 (UTC) | |||
| ::Thanks again, JzG. I noticed that you placed a full-protection template on the page, however the page is only semi-protected. I would endorse full protection to put an end to this counter-productive edit-warring. Thanks, ] 15:44, 28 August 2007 (UTC) | |||
| Clue deficiency. Fixed now. Frankly I think the project would be better off if that article were a lot shorter. <b>]</b> <small>(])</small> 15:48, 28 August 2007 (UTC) | |||
| *Hi JzG, whenever you get a chance, can you please see #14 (Protection) and #16 (For JzG) and #12 (edit request) on this page http://en.wikipedia.org/Talk:St_Christopher_Iba_Mar_Diop_College_of_Medicine Thanks in advance for your feedback. ] 21:16, 29 August 2007 (UTC) | |||
| ==Happy New Year== | |||
| You know the answer is '42' (to life, the universe and everything). By the way, you might take a look at ]. The talk page is getting heated, but no edit warring at this time. This is an article about a case of first impression in the CA Supreme Court. It is the first in the US to interpret a federal statute ] as to defamation by a "user" of internet 'services'. The parties to the appeal both appeared on the talk page. And Curtis, who had changed the article (after it was agreed on by a concensus, as NPVO and sticking to the facts of the case). This is related to the same people that were discussing or editing ]. Only on ], Barrett appeared. Here, Polnevoy appeared. Both after Curtis' comments.] 03:08, 1 January 2007 (UTC) | |||
| == A personal attack targeting you == | |||
| : Has Polevoy made an appearance here at Misplaced Pages? What's his user name? -- ] 20:08, 1 January 2007 (UTC) | |||
| ::Drpolevoy, I think. He is a 'new' user, who first showed up today at this article, it appears - if that is indeed he.] 20:32, 1 January 2007 (UTC) | |||
| <span class="plainlinks userlinks">] (] · ] · ] · · ] · )</span> made a personal attack targeting you in the now deleted article ]. I thought that you would like to know about this in case this user is stalking you and you did not know about it. This user also wrote another attack article on another administrator in the now deleted article ]. ] 16:50, 28 August 2007 (UTC) | |||
| == ] warning over editing the ] guidelines to support your argument without consensus support. == | |||
| * Thanks, I think my "frustrated ] meter" is registering 100% on that one. <b>]</b> <small>(])</small> 16:53, 28 August 2007 (UTC) | |||
| :I am sorry if I make you distressed with the above notice, but I feel that administrators should stick together and help each other withstand trolls. By the way, due to the attacks, this account now has a final warning regarding attacks. ] 16:54, 28 August 2007 (UTC) | |||
| ::Looks like this troll is indef blocked by someone else. ] 16:55, 28 August 2007 (UTC) | |||
| ::: Could also have been username blocked. No biggie, though, just a garden-variety troll. <b>]</b> <small>(])</small> 17:01, 28 August 2007 (UTC) | |||
| == Sectarian Movement == | |||
| Please do not edit guidelines that initially contradicted you argument, in order to make them support your argument. Such edits should only be made if you have a demonstrated and firm consensus show to support the change, and even then it would be better to ask another editor to do so. --] 13:12, 1 January 2007 (UTC) | |||
| Dont agree with your claim that protestant is the same as sectarian. Two completely different things.] 15:42, 30 August 2007 (UTC) | |||
| : Having given this the consideration it merits, fuck off. I quoted another policy rather than leaving a version which is being used by some editors to reverse engineer support for ''their'' agenda. ] '''already has consensus''' (as well as the backing of the Foundation's legal advisors) and citing it to clarify a position absolutely is not disrupting anything to prove anything, other than that linking to offsite copyvios is a ]. <b>]</b> <small>(])</small> 13:33, 1 January 2007 (UTC) | |||
| * But in the absence of a more recent citation, it will do. <b>]</b> <small>(])</small> 16:33, 30 August 2007 (UTC) | |||
| ::Please stop. If you continue to make personal attacks on other people{{{{{subst|}}}#if:{{{1|}}}| as you did at ]}}, you will be ] for disruption. Comment on content, not on other contributors or people. Thank you. <!-- Template:Npa3 --> --] 13:46, 1 January 2007 (UTC) | |||
| ==The THF thing== | |||
| Guy, I think you have done a good job of remaining neutral and fair in this dispute, and I will go out on a limb and say THF would agree. Would you be willing to open an ArbCom case to iron this out? I don't think it would be a good idea for either THF or myself to do it, because I think neither of us has the ability to present the questions posed in a productive manner. --<span style="color:#0000C0;">David</span> ''']''' 18:39, 31 August 2007 (UTC) | |||
| == You don't know me but... == | |||
| You now seem to be attempting to goad me into a 3RR or edit war by adding redundant statements on copyright to the guideline. Your recent addition of a new 'copyright' subsection replicates the 'restrictions on linking' section already in the article, and adds no new content simply restating the copyright policy linked to. Please stop. If you feel we misrepresent current copyright policy, please bring it up for discussion. --] 13:52, 1 January 2007 (UTC) | |||
| <div style="border-style:solid; border-color:blue; background-color:AliceBlue; border-width:1px; text-align:left; padding:8px;" class="plainlinks">] '''Hello JzG''', SheffieldSteel has smiled at you! Smiles promote ] and hopefully this one has made your day better. Spread the ] by smiling at someone else, whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past or a good friend. Go on, smile! Cheers, and happy editing! <br /> <small>''Smile at others by adding {{tls|Smile}} to their talk page with a friendly message.''</small></div><!-- Template:Smile --> | |||
| :ROFL did you just warn Guy for incivility and then 6 minutes launch a text book example of bad faith assumption? If this RfC ends up at ArbCom I'll be there to watch the ridiculing that will follow. ] 14:55, 1 January 2007 (UTC) | |||
| *It's good to see you back at wikipedia. ]<sup>]</sup><sub>]</sub> 18:45, 31 August 2007 (UTC) | |||
| == Welcome back == | |||
| ::I particularly like the assumption that I am pushing an agenda while those apparently attempting to obfuscate the problem of linking to offsite copyright violations are not... | |||
| Welcome back! I hope that your WikiBreak was enjoyable/restful/(insert other adjective as appropriate : ) | |||
| Whether I may or may not agree with your opinion in any specific instance is immaterial (though imo, I think you ''do'' try to be fair). Imho I think you (among many others) do a necessary, but often underappreciated, set of tasks around here, and it's nice to see you "back at it". : ) | |||
| :: For the avoidance of doubt, I am not trying to goad anyone into anything, merely clarifying on our external links ''guideline'' the established consensus in our copyright ''policy'', which recent edits to the links guideline seem to me more to obscure than to clarify. I have yet to see a credible rebuttal to the contributory infringement precedent, and I am not aware of any circumstances in law where a failure of diligence is found to excuse any infringement of intellectual property rights (feel free to cite such a precedent if it exists). We ''know'' there is a problem with some (many) YouTube links, therefore we ''know'' we have to verify the copyright status from authoritative sources. I've seen the same arguments rage over whether text copied and pasted from a non-commercial website is ''really'' a copyright infringement. The law on this does look to be pretty much binary both in intent and in application. <b>]</b> <small>(])</small> 15:16, 1 January 2007 (UTC) | |||
| :::Please correct me if I misunderstand something here but as far as I know anything is ''implicitly'' covered by copyright ''unless otherwise stated''. Copyright notices are posted to show who owns the material not to ensure that it is in fact copyright. You need to explicitly license it as GFDL etc. for it not to be copyright in the traditional sense. So it seems to me that this entire debate is pseudo-legal nonsense since anything not explicitly licensed as GFDL etc. is covered by normal copyright and hence our policies are very clear on that, especially when it comes to YouTube because we know that they have problems controlling the content being posted. | |||
| :::Also, if YouTube content is ''imlicitly'' assumed to be legal non-copyvio unless otherwise stated then the same would apply to Misplaced Pages... and I assume (in good faith he he) that anyone can see the problem with that assumption and the reason why Misplaced Pages spends time and money on legal assistance. Just my 2 cents on this. ] 17:05, 1 January 2007 (UTC) | |||
| I hope you're having a great day : ) - ] 09:44, 2 September 2007 (UTC) | |||
| :::: Intellectual porperty law does not, in general, work on the assumption that a copyright is not being infringed unless someone says otherwise. The onus is on the user to verify copyright. The pro-YouTube camp appear to be arguing for a reversal of this practice, allowing links to be added unless one can conclusively prove that they violate copyright. That is unlikely to be the interpretation an IP lawyer would take. None of the links are, as far as I can see, of such pressing importance that they are worth risking putting the project in legal jeopardy, and in any case this is supposed to be the "free content" encyclopaedia, linking to offsite copyvios - or material where the copyright status is questionable - is against that ethos. It's not much different from the endless "fair use" arguments. <b>]</b> <small>(])</small> 17:33, 1 January 2007 (UTC) | |||
| ::::Misplaced Pages has a simple policy for copyright violations within text and images. If a copyright violation is alleged for text, a huge infobox is added to the top of the page, it's listed for investigation by an administrator. Ditto for images, sound files, and other uploads. It seems the only thing exempted from this policy is external links. They are almost as much of a liability to Misplaced Pages and it's perhaps time we had some process for external links to be checked for copyright status. We don't go around removing pages and pages from Misplaced Pages when we suspect a copyvio and we don't leave them trying to claim policy permits it, so I fail to see why external links shouldn't be treated in the same manner as other suspected copyright problems. | |||
| ::::It really might be time to get Brad Patrick to comment on whether he believes the existing policy is fine and if not, what he believes we need to do to satisfy the law so we can then tailor new policy around that. --<font color="#27408B" size="2">'''Kind Regards - '''] | ] | ]</font> 17:58, 1 January 2007 (UTC) | |||
| ::::: I think it's much simpler than that. If an editor in good standing removes a link, citing a credible concern, then we should treat it the same as any other text removed in good faith: it should be debated and not put back in until the concern has been addressed. If I remove a link to a site which habitually infringes copyright, I don't expect to have to argue the toss, but if people come back and provide documentary evidence that the particular link does not infringe copyright, then it can go back in. External links are only ever the trimmings around the edge anyway, Misplaced Pages does not exist as a link farm or referral system. If the link cannot be unambiguously shown to be "clean" then of ''course'' it should stay out - copyright policy says we don't link ot material which infringes copyright, and states a perfectly good reason why not. I've yet to see a link that was so very special as to make it worth running the risk of a lawsuit. Why do people have such a problem with this? What is so wonderful about these YouTube links that we should throw caution to the winds and hang the potential legal consequences? Beats me. <b>]</b> <small>(])</small> 18:24, 1 January 2007 (UTC) | |||
| :::::: Thanks to both of you for replying. I think there are at least 2 reasons. First of all YouTube makes it very easy to embed any video on their site on your blog etc. and that seems pretty popular so people assume that YouTube would be liable should there be any problems. Second, a lot of these YouTube videos are related to subjects outside the ordinary scope of an encyclopedia. And, without passing judgement on anybody, we all know that these articles are typically edited by people with a broader idea of what Misplaced Pages should be than those concentrating on the more traditional subjects. As for how to solve the interpretation problem I think Guy is right in saying that these links are not a central part of the articles. We already establioshed that YouTube is not a reliable source so really there should be no immediate need for them. The problem as I see it is that we have a very clear policy on pictures and copyviotext but people seem to be unaware of the legal status of these videos. Guy's edit to the guideline in question here may seem duplicate to some but it clarifies what many seem to misunderstand. As for Brad Patrick I think we should save him from the pain of reading through that RfC... :) I know a mine field when I see one by now which is why I asked here and not on the RfC. ] 18:44, 1 January 2007 (UTC) | |||
| == |
== fring == | ||
| hi there | |||
| While I have dealt with a number of sockpuppets before and am more familiar with checkuser policy, one of my goals in my adminship was to help out on ]. I noticed you were one of the few admins doing something there and wondered if you can point me in direction of procedure, as I am very aware that a wrong move on that subject can cause endless problems, but inaction is equally problematic. -- ] 13:58, 1 January 2007 (UTC) | |||
| : Mostly not too hard, actually - some people know the signs and give clear diffs to demonstrate, and others are pretty blatant. You might also want to subscribe to unblock-en-l. <b>]</b> <small>(])</small> 16:49, 1 January 2007 (UTC) | |||
| ::Thanks - just done so. Yes - some socks are pretty unimaginative making the same edits in all incarnations. ] 17:56, 1 January 2007 (UTC) | |||
| as per your comment in the afd | |||
| == Undelete! == | |||
| "Delete on balance, I think. The content is advertorial in style, and the references all appear to be traceable back to press releases and other non-independent sources. I don't think this is making its mark, and I suspect that the article is part of a campaign to fix that. Guy (Help!) 17:13, 1 September 2007 (UTC)" | |||
| The idea of this article is to educate people. Please help me edit the article so that it is not advertising. I don't understand what you mean about the references, also what is the difference between the ] article and the ], ], ], ] and ] articles, the list is endless. I used those articles as samples when making the fring article, so if fring goes then the others must also go must'nt they? | |||
| Sorry to bug you, but a while back, about everything I did (creating pages and adding images relating to ]) got deleted. This was my fault, because I indeed did things on purpose, such as blanking the TRS2006 page and adding a delete template, and adding things like "i stole this from auran without permission" on the image pages just to get them deleted. Well, I was very upset about something at the time, and I was wondering if you could undelete the images and articles I made? I'm sorry, I'll make sure not to let stuff get to me that bad again. Check my contribs to see all the pages. --]] 21:48, 1 January 2007 (UTC) | |||
| * Deleted articles don't appear in contributions history. <b>]</b> <small>(])</small> 10:44, 3 January 2007 (UTC) | |||
| now i am confused please help me. Thanx simon | |||
| ==Breast Implant Protected page is the wrong version== | |||
| ] 11:23, 2 September 2007 (UTC) | |||
| * Sorry, you'd need to pick someone who actually cares about that product. All I see is something being promoted on Misplaced Pages, and I'm not big on that. Comparison with massive global players like Skype and ICQ is unhelpful - a bit like asking that your garage band be included because we have an article on ]. You need to find substantial critical (as in analytical) editorial comment about the company, not mere reprints of press releases. A writeup of the company in one of the major business magazines is always a good place to start. <b>]</b> <small>(])</small> 11:27, 2 September 2007 (UTC) | |||
| Dear Guy, <p> | |||
| * Could you at least tell me what is viewed as advertising in the article so I can remove that text. | |||
| I was away for 2 days, and during that time there was an edit war again on the breast implant article, and it seems that you protected the article. I am an epidemiologist, formerly on the faculty at Yale University and a researcher at Harvard, who has published several peer-reviewed articles and reports on breast implants. Droliver is a plastic surgeon who deletes information that suggests that implants have risks, prefering a POV that implants are available and therefore must be safe. (Of course, reality is more nuanced). The protected version of the article deleted language that had been carefully negotiated regarding widely-established complications. It also deleted a compromise intro paragraph in systemic diseases that had been proposed by Samir, an administrator. <p> | |||
| mmm so if I understand you correctly if fring becomes a massive global player then they can get to advertise on wiki like Skype and ICQ? Either the article is an advert or it isnt, even global players like skype and ICQ can't have advertising space?? or am i wrong. The article is not intended as advertising! fring is a global player in over a 150 countries, may i ask what defines a global player? Please help me not to loose my confidence in wikipedia. It seems to me that even if there is no advertising in the article they will still delete it. ] 15:36, 2 September 2007 (UTC) | |||
| I'm sure that was not your intent and I would welcome your help in protecting a compromise version ot hte article, rather than the current version, which is written by droliver strictly from a plastic surgeon's point of view. He doesn't seem to understand the epidemiological studies that have been published.<p> | |||
| ==Thanks== | |||
| I don't know anything about the war between Jance and another new writer, but if you look scroll back on the discussion page you will see that a physician who treats implant patients, Dr Carter, agrees with my views (and vice versa), as do two other public health experts. Droliver has been alone on his POV, but somehow we always end up with his version of this article, which he has written almost single-handedly, deleting everyone else's revisions, despite considerable consensus against droliver's views.<p> | |||
| Welcome back. | |||
| Thanks for your support at ]. I was, in fact, wrong about the specific incident that set me off, but right on the generalities of the situation and -- I'm glad to hear you say -- right, essentially, on the policy issue. I'd give you one of ], but I don't feel comfortable giving out someone else's barnstars, and besides, you already have one, it looks like. | |||
| Please help.] 21:59, 1 January 2007 (UTC) | |||
| ::I would like to add that Droliver did not even agree with some of the deletions by Curtis. The 'war' between Curtis and me has been a dispute between Curtis and virtually every other editor on several articles. Curtis has wikistalked me to this particular article. I do not know if he has done the same to others. I understand the purpose of protection, and that the admin does not protect a "right" or a "wrong" version. What the solution here is, though, I do not know. ] 22:26, 1 January 2007 (UTC) | |||
| As I said at WP:AN/I, NeutralHomer doesn't seem able to track subtlety very well, so I don't know whether it will do any good or whether he will fall back on the vaguely conspiratorial language he resorts to when I'm not summarily banned from Misplaced Pages on his say-so. I know which way to bet, though. | |||
| ::: All protections are at ]. {{tl|editprotected}} is your friend. <b>]</b> <small>(])</small> 23:58, 1 January 2007 (UTC) | |||
| Again, thank you, and welcome back. --] | ] 12:07, 2 September 2007 (UTC) | |||
| == no hard feelings == | |||
| ==Well== | |||
| Hi, | |||
| Since you've directly rebuffed personal dialog, I will be moving the article back to mainspace for the duration of DRV, as I feel your move was improper, and you have chosen not to offer an explanation. I request that you do not blank this message (actually, I'd like you to restore my other one too) Best wishes, ] 14:02, 2 September 2007 (UTC) | |||
| * I did offer an explanation (at DRV). I'm not ''opposed'' to dialogue, but I don't see that spreading it to multiple venues helps much. I am not very active right now, and didn't see much point. I also want to avoid the vast talk pages that I have historically had, they don't load on my Blackberry and take months to load over 3G. Nothing personal, you understand. <b>]</b> <small>(])</small> 15:28, 2 September 2007 (UTC) | |||
| *While I gladly accept your explanation, I was on the verge of taking it personally for a minute there! :) I really never understand when people blank individual messages off their userpages, especially if the message expresses a concern over a prior ''lack of communication''. Anyway, I hope ''my explanation'' at the DRV meets your satisfaction, because the course of action I pursued was quite typical. Perhaps, being less active, one might find it even more prudent to consult with others, more involved in a given set of circumstances, before assuming that "something is fishy". Just a suggestion for the future. Best wishes, ] 15:55, 2 September 2007 (UTC) | |||
| ==Welcome back== | |||
| Good to see you back in the saddle. ]. ] 15:58, 2 September 2007 (UTC) | |||
| : Agreed - good to see you back. ] 17:00, 2 September 2007 (UTC) | |||
| ==Thank you== | |||
| ...for correcting me on the GFDL thing. I was thinking that it didn't matter if the stuff was copied back to the creator's userspace, but you're absolutely right, your way makes more sense. ] has the makings of a great contributor to our community, and I would like to mentor him/her past any inadvertant mistakes; I have to admit that Calton's rude messages on that talk page raised my hackles, because I don't want to lose a productive member due to something stupid and unnecessary. Thanks again. Respectfully - ] ] 16:14, 2 September 2007 (UTC) | |||
| * No problem, VigilancePrime's error was small but worth correcting, I'm sure he won't do it again. He also needs to remove the laundry list of vandals from his user page. I'm not being drawn on Calton. <b>]</b> <small>(])</small> 16:17, 2 September 2007 (UTC) | |||
| ==ArbCom== | |||
| Thanks for the advice, I will follow it. I haven't been sure how much of a case to build at this point, so I have focused on generalities with a few diffs. If I have been going about it wrong at this point, let me know, because I can supply ample diffs, although I figured since the case has not proceeded it would be better to wait until it does. --<span style="color:#0000C0;">David</span> ''']''' 18:42, 2 September 2007 (UTC) | |||
| == Possible BLP issue == | |||
| An AfD was put up by a relatively new contributor, {{User3|Ontheveldt}}, as his 3rd contribution to en.Misplaced Pages. His second contribution to Misplaced Pages was to create the category, People from Middletown, Ohio, Dr Jan Adams' hometown. However, instead of immediately adding Dr Jan Adams to this category, he immediately nominated Dr Jan Adams for deletion. I suspect this is personal between Ontheveldt and Dr Jan Adams, however, I'm on wiki-break, and if you or someone watching your talk page, would monitor this situation if something more develops, I would appreciate it? Yes, yes, I know everyone is thinking, "Damn, Ontheveldt is more[REDACTED] savvy in just 2 edits than KP Botany will ever be." Be that as it may, BLPs and agendas don't mix well on Misplaced Pages. Thanks. ] 20:07, 2 September 2007 (UTC) | |||
| == Hiya == | |||
| Good to see you again! ] 07:18, 3 September 2007 (UTC) | |||
| : Indeed! ] 09:21, 3 September 2007 (UTC) | |||
| == Another strange article == | |||
| After the COI post at WP:AN, I thought I'd point out ] to you. What do you make of that? ] 23:35, 3 September 2007 (UTC) | |||
| == resolved == | |||
| hi I noticed on my complaint about user MJis4freaks you have "resolved" it, how? I cant see anything on his user page. Let me no. ] 10:23, 4 September 2007 (UTC) | |||
| :I think this user thinks that there should be a Blocked section on his userpage or have one of those indefinitely blocked templates on his/her userpage (like {{]}}). <span style="font-family: Tahoma; font-size: 8pt;">] <span style="font-size: 7pt;">] ]</span></span> 10:51, 4 September 2007 (UTC) | |||
| ==]== | |||
| Hello, | |||
| An Arbitration case involving you has been opened: ]. Please add any evidence you may wish the Arbitrators to consider to the evidence sub-page, ]. You may also contribute to the case on the workshop sub-page, ]. | |||
| On behalf of the Arbitration Committee, ] ] 18:06, 4 September 2007 (UTC) | |||
| ==Admin== | |||
| Just a note...you told VigilancePrime that Calton is an "experienced administrator". No, he isn't, actually. He's not an admin. And isn't that the MOST important thing on Misplaced Pages? That the information is correct, no matter how you go about wording it or how rude you are when you say it? <small>—Preceding ] comment added by ] (]) 06:34, 5 September 2007 (UTC)</small><!-- Template:UnsignedIP --> <!--Autosigned by SineBot--> | |||
| ==User:CyclePat== | |||
| Just a notification that not only hasn't he given up, he seems determined to ]. Note your name on the case. --] | ] 11:10, 5 September 2007 (UTC) | |||
| Hi Guy, just out of courtesy, I'm letting you know that I put an RFArb in for CyclePat as you suggested to do so, but as you're named as a party, you may still wish to comment at ]. Best of luck :-) ] 13:17, 5 September 2007 (UTC) | |||
| : Yup, thanks. Needs to be sorted once and for all, I think. <b>]</b> <small>(])</small> 13:34, 5 September 2007 (UTC) | |||
| ==]== | |||
| Er, forget something? --] | ] 14:43, 5 September 2007 (UTC) | |||
| * TW did not post the nom, and I had to go and do that shit they pay me for. Done now. <b>]</b> <small>(])</small> 14:45, 5 September 2007 (UTC) | |||
| :Good one, ] 18:11, 5 September 2007 (UTC) | |||
| ::No way in hell it should be deleted in my opinion, Guy, looking at the last just about unanimous AfD to keep, but I'll sit back now that I've commented and tag the SPA's as they appear (one already, what's the over/under, 5, 10?) ] 18:15, 5 September 2007 (UTC) | |||
| No real opinion, Murphy asked so I passed it on, which is only fair after all. Guy 21:35, 5 September 2007 (UTC) <small>—Preceding ] comment added by ] (]) {{{2|}}}</small><!-- Template:UnsignedIP --> <!--Autosigned by SineBot--> | |||
| Guy, I really wish you'd simply let Don Murphy sue for Libel. He's unlikely to have a case, and we could use some precedent. Further, the incredibly contentious nature of his entire presence as a pair of words anywhere on Misplaced Pages's already resulted in the loss of H, after threats. I don't know why the OFFICE chickened out back then, except that H's leaving meant the issue was 'settled', but really, this is above the pay grade of all the volunteers here. That said, if there's a deletion, which looks unlikely, please salt the earth there, so we can simply avoid this ever again. ] 18:15, 8 September 2007 (UTC) | |||
| == proms == | |||
| Went to the proms today - Beethoven, Brahms, surprise extra the Academic Festival Overture, saw Joanna Lumley, met Richard Stilgoe and ran into a friend from the horn society. Good evening out! Guy 21:32, 5 September 2007 (UTC) | |||
| ==Non-help on help page== | |||
| Hi, while glancing at , I noticed a section at the end that does not look like it belongs there, but rather somewhere else. Check it out. ] 05:07, 7 September 2007 (UTC) | |||
| * Thanks for that. <b>]</b> <small>(])</small> 08:22, 7 September 2007 (UTC) | |||
| == Welcome back == | |||
| Welcome back, Guy!!! -- ] 12:36, 7 September 2007 (UTC) | |||
| :Yes, I'm slow on the uptake. -- ] 12:37, 7 September 2007 (UTC) | |||
| == Gastrich's latest petition == | |||
| It is my belief that some of the sock puppets aren't Gastrich. I have reason to believe that ] is a sock puppet of banned user ]. This in no way excuses Gastrich's behavior, and in fact given his history the accusation is justified, but pointing out that his claim that he is being framed isn't ''entirely'' false. ] | ] 21:03, 7 September 2007 (UTC) | |||
| * And it's my belief that some of them are - and in any case it doesn't matter. There are two things Gastrich wants: to promote Gastrich, and to promote his agenda. Neither of those is compatible with policy. He is incapable fo editing within policy, he misperceives his own bias as neutrality, and I would be staggered if any other admin who has dealt with him would give you any answer other than "hell no!" <b>]</b> <small>(])</small> 21:49, 7 September 2007 (UTC) | |||
| {| style="border: 1px solid {{{border|gray}}}; background-color: {{{color|#fdffe7}}};" | |||
| |rowspan="2" valign="middle" | ] | |||
| |rowspan="2" | | |||
| |style="font-size: x-large; padding: 0; vertical-align: middle; height: 1.1em;" | '''The Special Barnstar''' | |||
| |- | |||
| |style="vertical-align: middle; border-top: 1px solid gray;" | To ]: For his administrative actions in the most recent ] affair, showing patience, objectivity, fairness, and understanding of all related issues. - ] 05:53, 9 September 2007 (UTC) | |||
| |} | |||
| == PDMA == | |||
| Why did you delete the PDMA article? ] 21:42, 9 September 2007 (UTC) | |||
| * Same reason as last time: it was advertorial for an organisation with no obvious claim to notability. <b>]</b> <small>(])</small> 22:02, 9 September 2007 (UTC) | |||
| ::You note that you believe I am connected with the PDMA organisation which is untrue . ] 03:46, 11 September 2007 (UTC) | |||
| :: I did, first time (I believe I found the link at ]). This time I did not. But that is not relevant. <b>]</b> <small>(])</small> 06:40, 11 September 2007 (UTC) | |||
| == Proab == | |||
| Hi JzG, | |||
| I didn't remove the notice. I archived it because it was fully addressed + there is no reason to insist in shouting personal information on the streets. Nothing is achieved by your revert of mine . --] 07:07, 11 September 2007 (UTC) | |||
| : I am waiting for your response JzG. Please discuss it in the talk page of the relevant page where I opened a section explaining my edit. --] 07:29, 11 September 2007 (UTC) | |||
| :: Yes, and you've been waiting for a whole 20 minutes at 8:30am my local time, which time I spent getting ready for work. The issue is not "addressed", it is a notice of an arbitration enforcement. <b>]</b> <small>(])</small> 07:32, 11 September 2007 (UTC) | |||
| ::: JzG, you blocked Proab because you wanted for people to see his personal identity for 24 hours. "''It needs to stay there for at least 24 hours to let people see it, so for that period you are blocked from editing''". You even opposed its archival. even after the issue was discussed by Arbcom members and Morven wrote a summary of the discussion. I'll leave the issue. The notice is there. Enjoy it! --] 07:41, 11 September 2007 (UTC) | |||
| :::: I have looked into it more since then. The original thing that was removed was a complaint with diffs and links that was problematic. Morven's notice was a factual statement with no external links. If people have a problem with this then they need to take it up with the arbitrators. I am not comfortable with multiply-blocked edit warriors removing this or any other arbitration notice. <b>]</b> <small>(])</small> 08:40, 11 September 2007 (UTC) | |||
| ::::: I didn't remove it. I archived it because the case was brought to the attention of the committee and as a result Proab was placed on probation. That's it. The rest is your desire for "people to see it". To let them know of the personal identity of a[REDACTED] user. That was the logic behind your block: "It needs to stay there for at least 24 hours to let people see it, so for that period you are blocked from editing". Proab had only informed the Office, one arbitrator and a number of admins. He hadn't informed all arbitrators and admins; and that was certainly his error, but maybe he couldn't have informed "all" admins because someone was about to reveal his identity. | |||
| ::::: JzG, I am a human being and as much as you are, having a physical brain working in a similar way as yours. I come here with my arguments not with my personality or my contribution list or others. Please comment on the statements, not on the editors. --] 09:16, 11 September 2007 (UTC) | |||
| :::::: The WP:AE post was drawing this to the attention of the wider community. Above all, the problem is entirely of Proabivouac's own making - he did not have to evade his ArbCom sanctions and he did not have to go straight back to the same problematic behaviour. I have asked ArbCom to clarify. Now drop it. <b>]</b> <small>(])</small> 09:19, 11 September 2007 (UTC) | |||
| ::::::: That Proab acted incorrectly is clear. Yes, at times he may have shown problematic behaviour but this doesn't justify a straight generalization. He is a generally good and smart editor and I think there are many many editors on[REDACTED] who will agree with me. | |||
| ::::::: Thanks for asking for clarification from ArbCom. It is none of business anyways. Peace :) --] 09:32, 11 September 2007 (UTC) | |||
| :::::::: Ye,s it is ArbCom's business, and they can make the call. <b>]</b> <small>(])</small> 09:49, 11 September 2007 (UTC) | |||
| On the same subject, is there any paticular reason the block isnt quite considerably long because of his use of sockpuppets to evade the sanctions? Or is arbcom dealing? ]] 09:21, 11 September 2007 (UTC) | |||
| * You are free to block him for longer, I guess. I don't think what he did was especially bad, but causing drama is only likely to draw more attention to the thing he'd rather hide. It's fine for an editor to change accounts to protect their real-world identity, but it's not fine for them to change accounts in order to evade a sanction. It's fine to change accounts to distance oneself from past misdeed,s, it's not fine to do it in order to distance oneself from the consequences of such misdeeds and thereby gain time to carry on the same problem behaviour. I'm undecided about whether Proabivouac is a net positive to the project. <b>]</b> <small>(])</small> 09:25, 11 September 2007 (UTC) | |||
| Proabivouac has been the target of sustained harassment, some from pov warriors and some from banned users running socks. In spite of it he does a lot of good scholarly work on some difficult pages, and makes a significant positive contribution. More than most editors, people of differing views recognize the value of his work. ] <sup>]</sup> 11:08, 11 September 2007 (UTC) | |||
| : I'm happy to take your word on that. <b>]</b> <small>(])</small> 11:52, 11 September 2007 (UTC) | |||
| == Chrome (XM)== | |||
| I have noticed you have deleted the channel page a second time after having a stub tag placed on the page. I do not know your definition of content-free, but that page does have information on it that is of value. If you disagree with this, please expand the page with more content or ask other editors to edit the page before outright deleting the page. ] 13:12, 11 September 2007 (UTC) | |||
| * It's a directory entry for a minor facet of a company that already has an article. <b>]</b> <small>(])</small> 15:25, 11 September 2007 (UTC) | |||
| ::An editor has asked for a ] of ]. Since you closed the deletion discussion for this article or speedy-deleted it, you might want to participate in the deletion review. ] 14:38, 12 September 2007 (UTC) | |||
| == Travelport, Galileo CRS and Jeff Clarke (CEO) == | |||
| On 9/7 you deleted these three entries: Travelport, Galileo CRS and Jeff Clarke (CEO). After reading your cited justification for the deletion, we've discovered that there are some footnotes that referenced press releases and the company website that, while common in other notable corporate profiles, did indeed violate the terms of the policy and will be revised or deleted. Aside from those points, the entries did not contain promotional language and there was strict adherence to referencing third party sources for every factual claim, including Forbes, the NY Times and the Financial Times. As a corporation, Travelport exceeds the criteria for being noteworthy in the context of companies listed on the Misplaced Pages "List of American Companies" with 2006 revenue of $2.6 billion, approx. 7,500 employees and operations in 145 countries. The company is also an important part of the Orbitz and Blackstone stories, both of which recently became public companies. In addition to his relevance to Travelport, Jeff Clarke was also an integral part of one of the largest mergers in the history of the PC industry (HP/Compaq). References for these types of claims were included in the original entries. | |||
| Were there any other problems with the entries other than what was outlined in CSD G11? Since the basic criteria for Misplaced Pages content appears to have been met, I'd like to take your feedback and improve the entries. ] 14:12, 11 September 2007 (UTC) | |||
| * ], not an advertisement hoarding, and not the place to promote a business. Also, we have a ]. Your own company and it's glitterati are a ]. <b>]</b> <small>(])</small> 08:29, 12 September 2007 (UTC) | |||
| ==Hampl, Punto, Leutgeb ... == | |||
| Hello. Thank you for your greetings. Sorry, because my english is also "not up to this". I'm a Horn player als amateur but i'm interrestet in history of horn and of horn players like Hampl etc. So i wish you, to make no "kikser" on your horn. --- ] <small>—Preceding ] comment added by ] (]) 14:29, 11 September 2007 (UTC)</small><!-- Template:UnsignedIP --> <!--Autosigned by SineBot--> | |||
| ==Motorized Bicycles== | |||
| Thanks for your help pruning the external links on the ] page! Your help is very... helpful! ] 15:59, 11 September 2007 (UTC) | |||
| ==Since you were wondering...== | |||
| ...this is typical behaviour of this user when interacting with others, as summarized ]. ] 17:20, 11 September 2007 (UTC) | |||
| == Republic Magazine deletion == | |||
| I would like to know why the page for Republic Magazine was deleted. This was the answer YOU gave: (CSD G11: Blatant Advertising Bi-monthly, started in July? That's, what, two or three issues so far? No chance.) | |||
| What dont you understand about the term "bi-monthly"?? Bi-monthly is EVERY TWO MONTHS. The first issue came out in July and was for "July/August", the 2nd issue is out NOW and is for "September/October". There is only TWO issues in existence, July/August and September/October. Bi-monthly-----> every TWO months, not bi-weekly, which is twice a month. Did you think I was referring to bi-weekly? You must have. I would like the page back up. I dont appreciate you just deleting it without being warned. If I was warned, I could have told you the meaning of the term "bi-monthly" in advance. | |||
| I dont even understand your reason why it was deleted. You said "started in July? thats, what, two or three issues so far? no chance". I dont even understand that. How many issues did you think there should have been since July? If it was bi-weekly that would mean about 5 issues would exist. If it was monthly, about 3 issues would exist. I did not say how many issues were in existence on the page. I just mentioned underneath the picture of the magazine with Ron Paul on it that it was the 2nd issue----which was CORRECT, since the 2nd issue is for September/October. What exactly did you not understand? Im not trying to be smartassed---I really dont know what you misinterpreted. Please put the page back up, because if it's not, I will know it was removed out of biased reasons. I'm a writer, I will do a story on wikipedia's blatant censorship if it's not restored. I will have the proof, so it wont be libel. ] 07:22, 12 September 2007 (UTC) | |||
| * This is an encycloapedia. It exists to document that whicih is already verifiably significant, not promote that which people hope one day will be. Political activist magazines are a dime a dozen, and this one only just shipped its second issue. <b>]</b> <small>(])</small> 08:25, 12 September 2007 (UTC) | |||
| == Why the reverts and re-reverts? == | |||
| Eeeek. Whats going on, Guy? ]<span style="color:black;">e</span>] 07:53, 12 September 2007 (UTC) | |||
| : Was kinda wondering too ... - ] ] 08:26, 12 September 2007 (UTC) | |||
| * Lack of Clue - I went to revert titface's edits and clicked your contribs by mistake. Half asleep. <b>]</b> <small>(])</small> 08:27, 12 September 2007 (UTC) | |||
| :: Heh! I know what that's like. 1:30am here and I'm stuck in work. Get some sleep, the two of you! :) - ] ] 08:28, 12 September 2007 (UTC) | |||
| ::: 09:29 here, and into the second cup of coffee - I'll be awake Real Soon Now. <b>]</b> <small>(])</small> 08:30, 12 September 2007 (UTC) | |||
| :::: Ha ha. No worries. I just thought for a moment the troll had cloned your account somehow and was carrying on his revert spree. At this time of night anything seems possible! ]<span style="color:black;">e</span>] 08:53, 12 September 2007 (UTC) | |||
| == BIG Daddy M == | |||
| Regarding , who did you suspect him of being? Just curious, but is very much alike to , not to mention the fact that this is another editor who wars for no reason and edits Wrestling-related and comic-related articles. ] <small>(] • ])</small> 23:25, 12 September 2007 (UTC) | |||
| * Let's not speculate further, shall we? <b>]</b> <small>(])</small> 23:30, 12 September 2007 (UTC) | |||
| I meant no harm, there's no further evidence to support this theory anyway. Sorry for the inconvenience. ] <small>(] • ])</small> 23:37, 12 September 2007 (UTC) | |||
| ==Merge== | |||
| You may be interested in ]. ]<sup>]</sup> 10:34, 13 September 2007 (UTC) | |||
| == OTRS Question == | |||
| I noticed you made a deletion related to ]. Didn't know if you wanted to reply to it or not. Just a heads up more than anything. Have a great day. '''<span style="color:#c22">^</span>]'''</sup>]] <em style="font-size:10px;">15:12, 13 September 2007 (UTC)</em> | |||
| * I commented in the otrs irc channel that someone else should reply, since I was the one who nuked it. <b>]</b> <small>(])</small> 15:16, 13 September 2007 (UTC) | |||
| ** I wasn't in channel so I missed that, sorry. I'll take care of it now. I've also watchlisted the article in question. '''<span style="color:#c22">^</span>]'''</sup>]] <em style="font-size:10px;">16:48, 13 September 2007 (UTC)</em> | |||
| ::* No problem. I always think "I nuked it" looks less than caring in these circumstances, but it's what it needed; better to say "it has been deleted as failing blah blah" and have it come from an independent individual, IMO. <b>]</b> <small>(])</small> 19:35, 13 September 2007 (UTC) | |||
| == Great work, keep it up == | |||
| {| style="border: 1px solid {{{border|gray}}}; background-color: {{{color|#fdffe7}}};" | |||
| |rowspan="2" valign="middle" | ] | |||
| |rowspan="2" | | |||
| |style="font-size: x-large; padding: 0; vertical-align: middle; height: 1.1em;" | '''The Defender of the Wiki Barnstar''' | |||
| |- | |||
| |style="vertical-align: middle; border-top: 1px solid gray;" | For detecting and quashing racist propaganda in Misplaced Pages. ] 18:23, 14 September 2007 (UTC) | |||
| |} | |||
| == Thanks for RfA support and a question == | |||
| hi guy, i've posted a response to my blocking/unblocking on my user page. please take a minute to ], and let me know what you think, thanks. --] 00:01, 2 January 2007 (UTC) | |||
| Thanks very much for your support in my recently successful RfA. I appreciated your comment! | |||
| ==Happy New Year!== | |||
| ]]] | |||
| Since you seem to be online, I just blocked {{user|WillyOffOfWheels}} with account creation disabled as a meme of the infamous WillyOnWheels. Is this appropriate? The guy's feigning ignorance on his talk page. Cheers! -- ] ] ] 18:41, 14 September 2007 (UTC) | |||
| == AMA Request== | |||
| * Of course. He's gaming the system and can be ignored. <b>]</b> <small>(])</small> 20:14, 14 September 2007 (UTC) | |||
| :*That's what I figured. -- ] ] ] 06:53, 15 September 2007 (UTC) | |||
| == User:Edgarde/IPC == | |||
| Hello Guy, | |||
| I understand your involved in ]. I would appreciate your comments and insight to help resolve this case either on mine, Rfwoolf's or the case's talk page. Thankyou. ]]] <small><sup> ] . ] . ]</sup></small> 07:03, 2 January 2007 (UTC) | |||
| DGG is being commendably considerate of the right to vanish, but actually this is a subpage and is GFDL'd so I've restored it and moved it ot ] for you. <b>]</b> <small>(])</small> 20:03, 14 September 2007 (UTC) | |||
| == Edit to ] while protected. == | |||
| :Super duper! This is everything I would have asked for if I thought I could have it. Thank you a lot. / ]<small> ] ]</small> 20:08, 14 September 2007 (UTC) | |||
| Please revert your change to ], the page is currently protected. The change proposed has only been discussed for an hour, and there had been voiced opposition by an editor. There was no reason to break protection to make the edit. --] 21:30, 2 January 2007 (UTC) | |||
| * No thanks. <b>]</b> <small>(])</small> 21:33, 2 January 2007 (UTC) | |||
| : * Please explain why you will not? --] 21:39, 2 January 2007 (UTC) | |||
| ::* Because the change was very small and replaced a loaded word open to misinterpretation (as evidence credible concerns raised on Talk) with a value-neutral one. This is entirely reasonable in the lead of a high-profile guideline page. <b>]</b> <small>(])</small> 21:52, 2 January 2007 (UTC) | |||
| :::* There are, however, some reasonable backing for the original wording. And this was not an urgent change requiring immediate admin action, and could have done with some more discussion. --] 21:57, 2 January 2007 (UTC) | |||
| ::::* Which just reinforces the ambiguity. The value-neutral term lacks the ambiguity. Move along now, nothing to see here... <b>]</b> <small>(])</small> 22:12, 2 January 2007 (UTC) | |||
| :::::* This is however a discussion you should have had on the talk page before editing the protected page. --] 22:19, 2 January 2007 (UTC) | |||
| ::::::* Fixing trivialities is never a big deal. Loaded word replaced with value-neutral one, world continues to turn on axis. <b>]</b> <small>(])</small> 22:25, 2 January 2007 (UTC) | |||
| ==] opened== | |||
| == Thanks. == | |||
| Hello, JzG. The ] in which you commented to has opened. Please provide evidences on the ] for the Arbitrators to consider. You may also want to utilize the ] for suggestions. | |||
| For the Arbitration Committee,<br> | |||
| Thanks for the support... the objections are becoming objections for the sake of objecting. ---] <sup>(]/])</sup> 21:32, 2 January 2007 (UTC) | |||
| - ] | <sup>] / ]</sup> 21:04, 14 September 2007 (UTC) | |||
| * I think they are working backwards from a conclusion. We've seen the same in many policy discussions; in the end, no amount of "but I ''like'' that shit!" will ever overwhelm a credible argument based on policy (in this case the copyright policy). I do not think that looking the other way and whistling innocently has ever worked as a defence in law. I could be wrong, of course, but I'm inclined to err on the side of caution. <b>]</b> <small>(])</small> 21:39, 2 January 2007 (UTC) | |||
| == "Usual crap" == | |||
| == Suspected use of Misplaced Pages to garner notability for others == | |||
| Do you really think "usual crap" is a civil way to conduct a discussion? ] 22:45, 14 September 2007 (UTC) | |||
| * Depends. If it's the owner of a website whose article has been deleted coming up with the usual crap about how if we have an article on Facebook then we should have an article on every single social networking site in the known universe, then yes. Actually if they came here themselves I'd just tell them to fuck off. <b>]</b> <small>(])</small> 22:48, 14 September 2007 (UTC) | |||
| == Larry Craig == | |||
| Hello ... please have a look at ] ... I suspect {{user|Striver}} has been creating a web of articles about NN books and authors to promote an agenda associated with the websites ], ], ], and others ... this is all linked back to ] and ], really two sides of the same coin, so why two articles? | |||
| I'm wondering why you removed the infobox from his article. He is, after all, a convicted criminal, and there's no question of this being a BLP issue - U.S. senators are clearly public figures whose criminal behaviour should be publicly reported. ] 22:52, 14 September 2007 (UTC) | |||
| * {{tl|infobox criminal}} is for people who are first and foremost criminals, as I understand it. But mainly it was about the image, which existed primarily to disparage the subject. I just removed the lot since we already have an appropriate infobox on that page. <b>]</b> <small>(])</small> 22:59, 14 September 2007 (UTC) | |||
| ** And I restored the image, because... we don't speedily delete things which are "disparaging" if they may be encyclopedically relevant to the article subject. We're not talking about Brian Peppers here, we're talking about a U.S. senator. I find it a very arguable point that a U.S. senator's police mugshot may be quite relevant to an article about a U.S. senator who is now embroiled in a major scandal relating to his criminal activities. That's a discussion worth having, and I don't know which way I fall just yet, but I don't think it should be speedied. ] 23:07, 14 September 2007 (UTC) | |||
| ::* Yes we do, ]. <b>]</b> <small>(])</small> 23:11, 14 September 2007 (UTC) | |||
| :::* I dispute your contention that a mugshot image is in and of itself unbalanced and disparaging. If placed in proper context, it is part of a balanced encyclopedia biography. A page consisting of nothing but a mugshot and "OMG CRIMINAL" would fit CSD G10, but this is not that. ] 23:15, 14 September 2007 (UTC) | |||
| ::::* Things I hate about ] no. 7: it forces us to take a cautious approach and defend people who are, in real life, indefensible. We already have a picture, we know what he looks like. We have citations for the events. We don't need a mugshot to drive home, in your words, "OMG! CRIMINAL!" It adds nothing other than a gleeful celebration of his misfortune. Proverbs 1:26 is a lesson in life for bigots everywhere but a poor practice on Misplaced Pages. <b>]</b> <small>(])</small> 23:30, 14 September 2007 (UTC) | |||
| == ] == | |||
| Striver has been arguing for recognition of ]s for satisfying ] criteria in ] AfDs, but the more suspicious behaviour is the creation of articles about NN books and their authors ''published'' by them, then seeding Misplaced Pages articles with external links to "read it online" at al-islam.org or al-shia.com ... he placed 15 of them in one article alone. | |||
| Is this the sort of thing you were hoping for at ]? If I'm on the right track, i'll continue, if not, please clarify. ] 23:19, 14 September 2007 (UTC) | |||
| * Anything that replaces the crap with cited and neutral content (read: hopefully dry enough to drive off the whack-jobs but interesting enough to keep anyone who is serious about the subject proper) is good. Please do carry on. <b>]</b> <small>(])</small> 23:26, 14 September 2007 (UTC) | |||
| I knocked out 8K of uncited crap, a serious amount of COATRACKing, some areas where there was actual promotion of steroetypes, etc., etc. I'm off for some friday night time, but take a look and let me know what you think, perhaps on the talk page there? ] 01:00, 15 September 2007 (UTC) | |||
| my run through the article. It's 11K shorter, I dropped almost anytthign I saw as unsourced and promoting or just stating a stereotype without review or citaiton in its' section, and so I think it's a stronger article. If it needs moer work, I would appreciate the guidance... ] 04:24, 17 September 2007 (UTC) | |||
| Then I stumbled across what led to ] and its author, ] (my {{tl|prod}} was removed) ... two more questionable stubs created by Striver ... this led to other books and authors whose only "notability" was that Misplaced Pages had articles about them that show up in a Google or Yahoo! search ... please see the talk pages and edit history for my comments, and note Striver's lack of comments in their edits. | |||
| == NYLT == | |||
| My concern is that I am becoming a <u>stalker</u>, although it began as curiosity. I put a {{tl|notability}} tag on an article, and Striver deletes it without comment ... I put a {{tl|prod}} on it, and some other editor puts a ] on it, that also gets removed by the author, or changed to an AfD by another editor ... now it goes from CSD straight to ] so that it can get argued as an AfD, as in the case of the ]. | |||
| Would you please elaborate on the {{tl|accuracy}} tag just applied to ]. It is difficult to fix what we don't know is wrong. Thanks. --] 12:51, 15 September 2007 (UTC) | |||
| But I am also afraid that the kinds of external links being added, coupled with the number of articles being affected, is an attempt to ] values in ], and that is tied to pre-establishing the "notability" of some other enterprise ... and that strikes me as being <u>paranoid</u>, which makes me question my own motivation in even following this trail of bread crumbs. | |||
| * I'd love to, but the complainant was insufficiently specific. I've asked him to comment on the talk page. <b>]</b> <small>(])</small> 14:02, 15 September 2007 (UTC) | |||
| :Thanks. I figure you are the middleman between this and OTRS. I think we have been here before. BTW- {{tl|accuracy}} redirects to {{tl|disputed}}. --] 14:27, 15 September 2007 (UTC) | |||
| Now my IP address has changed again, and I don't ''really'' want to get dragged into repeats of the same old arguments about ] for ] as applied to ], ], ], and ]. I'd rather just do the research and turn this over to an administrator. Can I just sit in the background, following links, leaving coments on talk pages (and the occassional prod), but just stay out of the discussions? Is there some way that a ''whole bunch'' of these can be brought together at once for deletion (assuming I do the legwork), or used as a kind of "class action" to firm up some of the guidelines and policies so that this kind of armchair wiki-lawyering doesn't keep cropping up and wasting everyone's time? | |||
| == Please enlight me == | |||
| Thanks for any help in this matter, even if it's just to remind me that I need to get more of a life than Misplaced Pages. —{{user|72.75.84.93}} 03:45, 3 January 2007 (UTC) | |||
| Wondering why you just deleted my article on Sigrid Lidströmer. You wrote "lacks significans". So you think she wasn't significant? Since you must know a lot about this - in what way was she unimportant? I'd like to learn that. My ears are open... | |||
| * There is a difference between wikistalking and working your way through a walled garden. Striver has some history of strong opinions, so as long as you are open about what you are doing I see no pressing problem with it. <b>]</b> <small>(])</small> 09:33, 3 January 2007 (UTC) | |||
| 18:21, 15 September 2007 (UTC)18:21, 15 September 2007 (UTC)18:21, 15 September 2007 (UTC)18:21, 15 September 2007 (UTC) | |||
| * See ]. Any chance you're going to stop arguing about your articles on your family? <b>]</b> <small>(])</small> 18:27, 15 September 2007 (UTC) | |||
| ==]== | |||
| == ] == | |||
| Since ] is now a protected redirect to ], I had the thought that ] might do well as a protected redirect too. I'm checking with you because you were the last admin to deal with it. Whaddaya think? --] 21:05, 15 September 2007 (UTC) | |||
| Bad Guy! Bad! Fix lack of references, not delete! Bad! No donut! ] 07:40, 3 January 2007 (UTC) | |||
| * Only works at ''first'' nom - still unreferenced at ''second'' nom means that (a) no references exist or (b) nobody can be arsed to add them (and ]?). Plus I am a heartless deletionist and would see all ] excised from the project :-) <b>]</b> <small>(])</small> 09:30, 3 January 2007 (UTC) | |||
| ** ''Plus I am a heartless deletionist'' - Naww, you just play one on TV. There are an infinite cloud of references-needing but still notable articles out there. Nobody bothered to <nowiki>{{cite}}</nowiki> tag that one or I'd have fixed it. Haven't got an infinite amount of monkey time to type on all the things needing fixing... ] 09:47, 3 January 2007 (UTC) | |||
| ::* I completely believe you. My problem is with people who !vote "keep and improve" or assert refs in deleiton debates, and then odn't actually fix the article. If an article is AfDed and the people who want it kept can't be arsed to fix the reason it got nominated, then I rather stop caring. <b>]</b> <small>(])</small> 09:51, 3 January 2007 (UTC) | |||
| :::* It now has references to a print book, the New York Times, a Somali newspaper, a US local newspaper, and several websites. Satisfactory? ] 10:34, 3 January 2007 (UTC) | |||
| ::::* The print book is just a directory of <s>ego trips</s> micronations, isn't it? <b>]</b> <small>(])</small> 10:41, 3 January 2007 (UTC) | |||
| ==Request for opinion and guidance== | |||
| I'm having trouble with the ] article, I would appreciate your opinion. ] 11:22, 3 January 2007 (UTC) | |||
| * You can reason with De Facto, although he seems to have an agenda against any kind of road enforcement (I'm guessing he's an ABD member) he is well versed in policy and not given to removing cited text. The solution is to find a good source. <b>]</b> <small>(])</small> 11:28, 3 January 2007 (UTC) | |||
| :* My only agenda is to promote the neutral POV in articles. There is legitimate criticism of speed humps, as there is of many other measures introduced in the name of road safety, it needs to be included - not swept away. -- ] (]). 12:02, 3 January 2007 (UTC) | |||
| ::* Your scepticism is generally greater than mine, and I'm pretty sceptical about road "safety" interventions. My major problem with the current opposition to road enforcement is that it appears to be founded on the idea that drivers can be left to make valid judgements - actually the fact is that they can't, if they could there would be no interventions. Most drivers overestimate their own skill. Most rabid opposition to enforcement seems to come from middle aged male company car drivers, whose collision rate (surprise surprise) is considerably greater per mile than the average - but bad driving is always presented as a problem with ''other drivers'', never our own driving. This would be less of a problem if it were not for the fact that negligently driven motor vehicles are one of the biggest killers of children in this country despite our having some of the most restricted children in the world in terms of personal independent mobility. Motor vehicle collisions are at least one and possibly two orders of magnitude more likely to be fatal than other sources of avoidable injury. Why are there speed bumps? Because people drive too fast. If they didn't drive too fast, there would be no need for speed bumps. But that's a philosophical argument. <b>]</b> <small>(])</small> 12:17, 3 January 2007 (UTC) | |||
| :::*Misplaced Pages is not a soapbox. If criticism has been made it needs to be faithfully relayed, not censored. We musn't be tempted to apply our own moral filters or POV and attempt to eliminate arguments that we don't understand or agree with. -- ] (]). 12:38, 3 January 2007 (UTC) | |||
| ::::* Strangely enough, as an admin of some experience, I ''know'' that Misplaced Pages is not a soapbox. Mine ''or'' yours. <b>]</b> <small>(])</small> 13:42, 3 January 2007 (UTC) | |||
| Thanks for the comment. If you had a moment can you review my comments on the talk page? I was sort of hoping for a ]-lite. ] 12:26, 3 January 2007 (UTC) | |||
| ==Sigrid Lidströmer== | |||
| == More kids to use Misplaced Pages as a discussion forum == | |||
| Hello. You speedied ], saying that the article did not assert significance. | |||
| This one apparently led by the teacher, who thinks a WP user page would make a great bulletin board. I left a note suggesting otherwise. -- ] 17:16, 3 January 2007 (UTC) | |||
| The article is very messy and does not seem to assert major significance. However, it does seem to assert minor significance, indeed, quite a lot more significance than that of many pop singers and Pokemon who are lovingly written up in this "encyclopedia". As I've mentioned ], I don't see it as speediable material and I urge you to restore it. -- ] 22:23, 15 September 2007 (UTC) | |||
| == How to change the inaccuracy in the "Pagania" article? == | |||
| :Guy, it appears that Hoary's account has been hijacked, as he's arguing for keeping an article. I thought she was the translator? ] 22:38, 15 September 2007 (UTC) | |||
| ::] -- ] 22:50, 15 September 2007 (UTC) | |||
| ''If you feel an admin has done you wrong, try talking to them. Nicely.'' I don't merely "feel" but rather I ''think'' that you did wrong to ], an article that was mediocre, perhaps AfD-worthy, but not obviously speedy-worthy. Niceness is hardly my forte, but I'll try: Please undelete this, and, if you wish, take it to AfD. Thank you. -- ] 00:32, 18 September 2007 (UTC) | |||
| Hallo JzG. According to your advice, I found reliable and neutral sources from various historians against the Serbian origin of the Narentine people in my "Arguements against Serbian origin of Narentines" discussion. Nobody tried to dispute it (only Pax sustained that I'm Africa guy). What is the next step to change this inaccuracy in the article to match the Wiki standards? I'm sure that if I follow the "be bold" advice of the Wiki, I will start the edit war, and I don't want to do that. So, what am I to do? Thank you in advance.] 19:07, 3 January 2007 (UTC) | |||
| :Hello again. No reply, so I moved what was in a scratchpad page of the writer to ]. Of course you're free to AfD it, but I think you'll agree that it's hardly speediable. -- ] 12:21, 22 September 2007 (UTC) | |||
| * I know nothing about the subject area, you need to propose a change on the Talk page and discuss it with the other editors. <b>]</b> <small>(])</small> 19:51, 3 January 2007 (UTC) | |||
| :* She was a translator. She translated some stuff. Some of this stuff had not been translated before. She corresponded with the author of at least some of the stuff she translated. All we need now is a claim of encyclopaedic notability and we're away. <b>]</b> <small>(])</small> 12:58, 22 September 2007 (UTC) | |||
| **I will try to do that. But, whose consent do I need to get in order to do the change? Is it the authors? Because I'm sure I will not get it. And what if he never replyes? What's the procedure?] 20:06, 3 January 2007 (UTC) | |||
| ::*If you think the subject is short on notability, you are of course very free to send the article to AfD. The steps involved are rather tiresome, of course; so as a gesture of amicability or whatever I'll even send it to AfD for you, if you ask me to. -- ] 15:38, 22 September 2007 (UTC) | |||
| ::* If it doesn't achieve consensus, then maybe you've not got it right yet. <b>]</b> <small>(])</small> 22:19, 3 January 2007 (UTC) | |||
| == BLP Issue == | |||
| == Nothing to Lose (but an article) == | |||
| Is there ''anything'' you can do about this editor's rants on the ] talk page? ]? He claims he represents Ms. Wilding, but all I can think is I sure as hell hope not, for her sake, since I don't have a serious grudge against her (unlike my grudge against ]). I've asked ] to assist with editing the page, but Real77 is chasing all the good editor's away, and no one can get in there to edit. In addition to which the talk page is a stream of indecipherable rants. My concern now is that the talk page looks like such a piece of ranting shit that it will ultimately reflect poorly upon Ms. Wilding and the article as part of its permanent history. I feel this is a legitimate concern, although an unusual one, for a BLP, that an editor claims to be representing the subject of the article, but is indirectly, by their actions, trashing the hell out of the person. It is extremely difficult to impress anything upon this editor, Real77, because of what appears to be a serious English language barrier. I don't know what's going on, but I don't think editors should have unlimited rights to make a living person look like shit on Misplaced Pages, even if they really are representing them. ] 06:23, 16 September 2007 (UTC) | |||
| Hey, I noticed you deleted ]. Thing is...I kind of need this article to...uh...''exist''. Is there anything I can do to remedy this? ]; ]. 20:31, 3 January 2007 (UTC) | |||
| * | |||
| * You could always try making some assertion of notability, but that only works long term if it's credible per ]. <b>]</b> <small>(])</small> 20:41, 3 January 2007 (UTC) | |||
| * | |||
| :Many of the IPs are his, also. And he refers to himself oddly in the first person plural all of the time, having various excuses for this, "my wife is in the room," and "it's none of your business," being two I vaguely recall. | |||
| :] 06:26, 16 September 2007 (UTC) | |||
| ::Oh, nice, he just made a legal threat. ] 06:28, 16 September 2007 (UTC) | |||
| ==DRV Image:Larry Craig mugshot.jpg == | |||
| You were invloved in the deletion of the image now being addressed at ]. Please consider participating in that discussion. -- <span style="font-family:Kristen ITC;">''']''' <sup>''(])''</sup></span> 08:50, 16 September 2007 (UTC) | |||
| An editor has asked for a ] of ]. Since you closed the deletion discussion for this article or speedy-deleted it, you might want to participate in the deletion review. '''<span style="color:red;"><strong>→</strong></span>]<sup> ♦ ]</sup>''' 09:01, 16 September 2007 (UTC) | |||
| == Thank you for your support == | |||
| == Chrome (XM) == | |||
| Thank you for your support in ]. It is an honor to have received your expression of confidence. To be chosen as an administrator requires a high level of confidence by a broad section of the community. Although I received a great deal of support, at this time I do not hold the level of confidence required, and the RfA . It is my wish that I will continue to deserve your confidence. Sincerely, --] <font color = "blue"><sup>]</sup></font> 22:09, 3 January 2007 (UTC) | |||
| Now why on earth did you delete this page 3 times. It is not a7, so I don't know where you got that idea and it is definitley not a G11. Perhaps you don't remember what an a7 is. An a7 is a tag for a blatant advertisement of a product or service. Now was that really an advertisement? No. Every other damn page for an XM channel has not been deleted. You might as well just add XM tags to the other 120 XM Channel pages on Wiki. Perhaps semi-protecting it, but you trying to get that blocked is wrong. Obviously you have no clue as to the policies that have been set fourth here, and i strongly suggest you be instructed in the proper mode of editing wikipedia. I'm contacting a few more administrators.--] 15:30, 16 September 2007 (UTC) | |||
| ==Cube World== | |||
| * I'm just wondering how often I'm going to have to say this. It was an article that ''did not assert notability'' (]). It said this is one of the brands of XM (on which we have an article), I'd have redirected it only ''nobody but us'' refers to it as Chrome (XM), that was a made-up title. I put the link to XM Satellite Radio into Chrome, the disambiguation page. <b>]</b> <small>(])</small> 16:00, 16 September 2007 (UTC) | |||
| *{{la|Cube World}} | |||
| What's your problem?! Why the heck did you delete my cool new article about Cube World?!!! Next time, '''at least''' just put a warning that the article's under vandalism before you go along and just delete it! ] 22:46, 3 January 2007 (UTC)Drewdy | |||
| * Same reason as the other five deletions. Why the heck did you keep re-creating it? <b>]</b> <small>(])</small> 22:48, 3 January 2007 (UTC) | |||
| == |
== ] == | ||
| * {{la|DekiWiki}} | |||
| Would you please justify why an article that has had several contributors was deleted? It was clearly not spam. It was clearly of significance. The traffic alone would surely validate this. Google DekiWiki or MindTouch. Now consider the project only launched at the end of July (2006) and in that short time has garnered more than 50,000 installs. I provided several other notable assertions in the article and on the talk page. It's surely significantly more notable than 99% of other wiki projects that have articles on them. Moreover, the deletion process was not adhered to when it was initially deleted because the page was not spam or vandalism. You cite that no assertion of notability were provided. That's incorrect there were several assertions to this affect. I can only assume you did not read the article or it's corresponding talk page if you think it's not-notable or an advertisement. It is, without a doubt, not either. I urge you to read the article and you will undoubtedly realize this. This is at least as notable as any of those listed here: ]. | |||
| Actually, a reliable source isn't as necessary when the facts are easily ]. --] 19:02, 17 September 2007 (UTC) | |||
| Finally, I did not notice you had deleted it (I noted two deletions in 20 minutes after the page was locked) b/c I was, at the time, editing. Had I noticed the deletion I would have immediately posted here prior to recreating so as to prevent lock. I recreated the page in the first place because the deletion process was not adhered to in it's initial deletion. I'm also very surprised that you wouldn't have had the courtesy to post a message on my talk page. | |||
| * You might want to read ], ] and the like. Nothing wrong with reposting with reliable sources, but reposting with the same crap sources is not on. <b>]</b> <small>(])</small> 22:24, 17 September 2007 (UTC) | |||
| What I find funny is that users say that TorrentFreak and the like are not "reliable". However when it comes to popular blogs such as engadget, people immediately seem to find that source "reliable". Excuse me, but I don't see how famous newsapers, blogs, and all that other crap makes you think it's reliable. What if all the sources you call reliable all disappeared into nowhere? It's all crazy talk if you ask me, utter shit actually. Now stop reverting it, PLEASE. ] 23:07, 17 September 2007 (UTC) | |||
| I can only assume, as I've previously surmised, this is motivated by monetary or political motivations. It's becoming clearer daily that Misplaced Pages is not free. | |||
| * I think you may be confusing me with other people. I have never called engadget a reliable source. Please cite reliable sources. <b>]</b> <small>(])</small> 23:08, 17 September 2007 (UTC) | |||
| :I never said you yourself called it a reliable source. Popular != reliable. ] 23:30, 17 September 2007 (UTC) | |||
| ] 23:06, 3 January 2007 (UTC) | |||
| == Vopt AfD == | |||
| Free Knowledge. | |||
| # 22:35, January 3, 2007 JzG (Talk | contribs | block) deleted "DekiWiki" (WP:CSD criterion A7 (no assertion of notability), G11 (advertisement)) | |||
| # 20:15, January 3, 2007 JzG (Talk | contribs | block) deleted "DekiWiki" (WP:CSD criterion A7 (no assertion of notability), G11 (advertisement)) | |||
| # 14:14, January 2, 2007 Kingboyk (Talk | contribs | block) deleted "DekiWiki" (Spam: near-orphan, non-notable Mediawiki fork) | |||
| Kindly review the responses posted to the ] article ] 06:28, 19 September 2007 (UTC) | |||
| So that's three deletions by two admins. Misplaced Pages is an encyclopaedia, not a directory. The difference between the two is ]. This article did not assert it. As to your conclusions about Misplaced Pages, I would suggets they are skewed by your evident involvement in the DekiWiki - a ]. <b>]</b> <small>(])</small> 23:13, 3 January 2007 (UTC) | |||
| * Kindly add the assertions of notability to the article. <b>]</b> <small>(])</small> 06:33, 19 September 2007 (UTC) | |||
| I trust you will take another look at the article as well as the AfD discussion and have the good sense to keep the article as revised --] 15:59, 19 September 2007 (UTC) | |||
| :Just because an admin says it's so doesn't make it so. Did you personally read the article? A ] is Wikia and Socialtext employees or those garnering any monetary benefit from said companies making decisions on an article like DekiWiki. Moreover, of the several people who contributed to the article only ONE was a MindTouch employee (me). It's obvious Misplaced Pages is being used as a weapon against a competitor of companies that are involved with Misplaced Pages. With this, it's also clear(er): Misplaced Pages is not free. ] 17:23, 4 January 2007 (UTC) | |||
| * But it's still a directory entry. Why not include some of the colour mentioned in the AfD debate? know this is en encyclopaedia, but that article is a dry-as-dust description of what reads as an essentially generic product. <b>]</b> <small>(])</small> 17:17, 19 September 2007 (UTC) | |||
| == Spam #7 (gator flavour) == | |||
| == SqueakBox == | |||
| A ] in which you participated has been relisted: ].<br/><font color="black">]</font> 02:06, 4 January 2007 (UTC) | |||
| Guy, I appreciate your open mindedness about SqueakBox but really he does not invariably meet reason with reason. When my request to not depopulate a category without going through CfD is met by accusations that I'm enamored with the rape victims category, I find this unreasonable. When SqueakBox routinely accuses editors of secret pedophile-supporting agendas, oblivious to the fact that, hey, maybe just maybe some people wouldn't be too happy to be labeled pedophiles for ], I call that unreasonable. That's not to say SqueakBox can't be a productive editor: he often is. But he can also be a tendentious editor. Of course, this is partly explained by his involvement in articles in which edit warring, POV pushing and sockpuppetry are routine. That does not make it any more acceptable. It ''is'' possible to be a member of ] without being a dick with everyone you find in your way, it ''is'' possible to fight POV pushing pedophiles without "boldly" removing a perfectly decent article about an absurdly objectionable subject, it ''is'' possible to fight for tougher applications of BLP without attempting to change one of the fundamental principles of the deletion policy without any sort of discussion . A few weeks ago at ANI, Jimbo commented on the recent controversy with Perverted Justice and said something like "what we need is more passionate anti-pedophile editors who are patient and smart to watch these articles". As I replied, what we need is editors that are patient, smart and as clinical as they can be. Passion makes Misplaced Pages suck. It's why administrators get constant flack, it's why there are revert wars, it's why there are insults flung all over the place and it's ''never'' necessary. Were SqueakBox not fighting on the obvious side of the good guys, he would have been forced to change his ways or leave the project a long time ago. Did you take a look at the diffs I provided on ANI? If not, please do: they are definitely the mark of an editor who behaves in a way that's likely to drive away editors like me who can take ''some'' abuse but do think that at some point it's best to leave the inmates run the asylum. Cheers, ] 23:47, 19 September 2007 (UTC) | |||
| ==Bridges at Mint Hill== | |||
| * {{la|Bridges at Mint Hill}} | |||
| Do not nominate this page for speedy deletion again, with a reason of spam or advertising. This page is no different from any other page that is in Misplaced Pages for a mall. ] 02:26, 4 January 2007 (UTC) | |||
| * Oh yes, demands always do the trick. Especially in respect on directory entries for places that don't even exist yet. <b>]</b> <small>(])</small> 09:27, 4 January 2007 (UTC) | |||
| * As I've said, in my experience he has, which is not to say that others have the same experience, or that he always has. Zealous application of ] is good, and overzealous application should be met with calmness. Passion is not what makes Misplaced Pages suck, ''obsession'' is what does that. Most of the serious problems I've encountered have been with people who are determined to boost their own interests, not with those pursuing ]. <b>]</b> <small>(])</small> 06:53, 20 September 2007 (UTC) | |||
| == Thanks == | |||
| :It's a fine line between unbdridled passion and obsession and passion stops being ok when it leads you to bulldoze your way through other editors. I suppose it's your right not to take a look at the evidence I provided or to write off SqueakBox's extensive block log as the sign of a passionate editor, but even if your interactions with him have been positive, it's important to point out that many others have found him stubborn, prone to wild accusations and prone to edit warring. And by "other editors" I don't mean sockpuppets of Voice of Britain, I mean myself, ], ], ], ], ], ], to name but a few. I'm grateful for the work that he does but I don't think there's any need for the crap that comes with it. ] 14:57, 20 September 2007 (UTC) | |||
| :: Most of those are Wikifriends of mine, I've not heard from them about it. Regardless, a little patience should pay dividends. He's not some kid, he is a grownup. <b>]</b> <small>(])</small> 16:49, 20 September 2007 (UTC) | |||
| :::Perhaps you can ask them then, or perhaps you can take a look at the diffs I provided or, say, ], ]. I'm asking for 10 minutes of your time because I really am genuinely interested in having your thoughts on this. If you read these incidents and conclude that SqueakBox is just a little too enthusiastic about his work and that the problem is the lack of patience from myself, Georgewilliamherbert, Morven, well I guess I want to get advice on how to handle such things, because clearly I can't. ] 17:56, 20 September 2007 (UTC) | |||
| :I am not obsessed with any subject on wikipedia. We cant have unsourced claims that any living person is a rape victim and I went through the people in that cat on a case by case basis, I certainly made no attempt to depopulate the category as some of the sourced cases where aboslutely left till the cfd passed. I afd'd the NAMBLA article after being asked to do so after being BOLD and redirecting it. ascal, your claim that Sidaway has a problem with me is offensicve and you dont have the evidence to back it up as I have had a good personal relationship with him and we tend to agree on many issues including re possible pedophilia images. This inj itself makes me think you are muck-raking if not actually harrassing me. I dont believe you should handle anything in relation to me, Pascal, as your own behaviour towards me has been far from perfect, eg bringing private emails to my talk page, and even after being warned by El C, being angry that I didnt assume you were an admin when you were not on the admin list nor contactable by meail etc. I have asked for mediation, you are ignoring that request and if this continues an Rfc is probably the only feasible option, and indeed if you want to see me sanctioned arbcom is the only realistic way you willa chieve that. But if you want to leave me alone to get on and edit that would be great. Your campaign against me is anything but, is unwarranted and unwelcome, ] 18:13, 20 September 2007 (UTC) | |||
| Thanks for watching my talkpage while I was gone. ] 04:10, 4 January 2007 (UTC) | |||
| :And Guy is right that I am not some kid but I feel you, Pascal, are treating me like you are the teacher and I am some unruly schoolkid,m which is so far from the truth that yopu'll have to forgive me if I don't take that approach seriously (I am an adult with serious responsibilities). You have accused me of recklessness etc but I dont see you as being in a position to make that kind of judgement concerning me which is why I would like to see medaition between you and I as the only solution to this issue, other of course than just ignoring each other, live and let live (you seem fine with my edits to the controversial ] so you clearly dont have a problem with many if not most of my main space edits, ] 18:16, 20 September 2007 (UTC) | |||
| * It was quiet :-) <b>]</b> <small>(])</small> 09:29, 4 January 2007 (UTC) | |||
| ==Edith Elura Tilton Penrose== | |||
| == Fisheaters.com == | |||
| Hi, I was gonna start a stub for ] and noticed you have deleted it 3 times already. She's pretty obscure but very influential. Would it be worth me writing up an entry and then putting it forward for consideration before creating the page or is it a lost cause? I mean is the problem just a lack of assertion of significance, or something else? Thanks ] <small>—Preceding ] comment was added at 10:10, 20 September 2007 (UTC)</small><!--Template:Undated--> <!--Autosigned by SineBot--> | |||
| * If a sourced article establishing notability can be written, just go ahead. The last version was, in its entirety: "'''Edith Elura Tilton Penrose''' (], ] in ] – October, 1996 in ], ]) was an economist." <b>]</b> <small>(])</small> 10:15, 20 September 2007 (UTC) | |||
| == Blogs as sources == | |||
| I was just wondering, out of curiosity more than anything else, why "fisheaters.com" is blacklisted under spam. I suppose I can imagine some content on the site being incendiary or something, but it had some pretty good information on customs for ]'s feast day, so I was going to add it as an external link on that article. | |||
| Your edit on the Roger Elwood article was proper. It's generally held to be a dirty little secret of the industry, alas, with no hardcopy sources to cite. Such is Wikilife: if you can't source, don't put it in. But I've reverted your edit to the article about John M. Ford, since it met the requirements of ] pretty nicely. --] 15:55, 20 September 2007 (UTC) | |||
| Oh well. | |||
| * I am very wary of stuff in the blogosphere which lacks an independent corroborating discussion in more reliable sources to attest to its significance. Bloggers have a tendency to blow things out of all proportion. <b>]</b> <small>(])</small> 16:47, 20 September 2007 (UTC) | |||
| ** This is not an ordinary case. It would be like impersonating a favorite uncle at an intimate family reunion! If he had been impersonated, it would have come out in mere moments, and the scandal would have spread throughout the community. A Mike Ford post on ''Making Light'' is pretty much the gold standard for stuff coming from John M. Ford. --] 16:54, 20 September 2007 (UTC) | |||
| ::* But do we ''need'' dozens fo quotes from the horse's mouth? We are supposed to reflect what the ''reliable independent sources'' say about him, not simply repeat what he said about himself. I think we're straying too much into a journalistic profile from original sources and away from an encyclopaedic distillation of published material. We are not supposed to be the ones weighing the significance of primary sources. <b>]</b> <small>(])</small> 17:08, 20 September 2007 (UTC) | |||
| :::If the article was based on such posts, it would of course be absurd. The item which was sourced to that particular post was a trivial one, one well within the bounds of the ] guidelines. --] 17:13, 20 September 2007 (UTC) | |||
| :::: Trivia is... trivial. Does the article ''really'' need padding? <b>]</b> <small>(])</small> 21:07, 20 September 2007 (UTC) | |||
| == Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion/Burger King menu items == | |||
| Trusting in your good judgment, | |||
| --] 07:04, 4 January 2007 (UTC) | |||
| * See ] for the whole sorry tale. <b>]</b> <small>(])</small> 09:14, 4 January 2007 (UTC) | |||
| You created an AfD over an existing archived AfD at ]. Ideally, you should have created ]. I'm not sure where to go from here. I don't know how to split article histories (if that is even possible.) The best bet may be to simply close the AfD, and revert back to the old version, and relist again at the second nom title, and I guess loose those 11 comments. What do you think? Did you purposely start and AfD over the existing archive?-] </sup>]] 02:02, 21 September 2007 (UTC) | |||
| ==Response at RfC== | |||
| I have responded at my RfC. Could you point out anything that should be improved upon or removed? Thanks in advance. — ] 10:56, 4 January 2007 (UTC) | |||
| * Twinkle might have done so, which would explain why I could not find the original... <b>]</b> <small>(])</small> 10:00, 22 September 2007 (UTC) | |||
| == ] == | |||
| == Clue help neded == | |||
| With regard to your recent message on his talk page, I take it that the image in question was speedily deleted; is that right? --] (]) 11:43, 4 January 2007 (UTC) | |||
| Over on BLPN. I from the SWK talk page, which implicitly compared him with Hitler and other notorious historical figures. Now I'm being attacked as a censor. Some cluebat assistance would be appreciated. Thanks! ] 06:44, 21 September 2007 (UTC) | |||
| * Yup. It came up blue on my deletion log. <b>]</b> <small>(])</small> 11:54, 4 January 2007 (UTC) | |||
| ::Thanks. --] (]) 12:53, 4 January 2007 (UTC) | |||
| == Smile! == | |||
| == ] == | |||
| <div style="border-style:solid; border-color:blue; background-color:AliceBlue; border-width:1px; text-align:left; padding:8px;" class="plainlinks">] '''Hello JzG''', Meateater has smiled at you! Smiles promote ] and hopefully this one has made your day better. Spread the ] by smiling at someone else, whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past or a good friend. Go on, smile! Cheers, and happy editing! <br /> <small>''Smile at others by adding {{tls|Smile}} to their talk page with a friendly message.''</small></div><!-- Template:Smile --> ] 11:54, 21 September 2007 (UTC) | |||
| I am so tempted to create that article :-) ] 14:02, 4 January 2007 (UTC) | |||
| * Damn! ] strikes again... <b>]</b> <small>(])</small> 14:07, 4 January 2007 (UTC) | |||
| == Why is 2010 in film protected? == | |||
| == Won't Fly == | |||
| I have put a reference to 2010 in film in articles for upcoming Narnia movies, but the page title is protected from creation. Why?] 20:11, 21 September 2007 (UTC) | |||
| This argument {{cquote|SlamDiego, thank you for bringing to our attention the fact that you have accused Jimfbleak of libel. This could be construed as a ] and if repeated could indeed see you indefinitely banned from the project. Since you chose to self-report I am hopeful that you have realised the error of your ways and will not repeat this personal attack.}} will not fly. Identifying libel as such is not even a claim that it should ''ever'' be legally actionable. (For example, hard-core proponents of freedom of speech such as ] and ] use the term, yet have bluntly said that libel should be decriminalized and that existing laws should not be invoked even as they remain on the books.) Please understand that no amount of cleverness is going to mystically transform the mere act of identifying a false and derogatory statement about oneself ''as such'' into itself a violation of present Misplaced Pages policy. —] 17:40, 4 January 2007 (UTC) | |||
| :Because Misplaced Pages is not a crystal ball. Any such assertions are at this point pure speculation. --] 22:31, 21 September 2007 (UTC) | |||
| * The statement about which you were bitching wasn't libel, and using pseudo legalese is widely interpreted as a legal threat under Misplaced Pages policy. Now stop being a dick. <b>]</b> <small>(])</small> 18:07, 4 January 2007 (UTC) | |||
Latest revision as of 10:01, 12 February 2023
JzG essay
http://www.chapmancentral.co.uk/Me_and_Wikipedia
Don't let the trolls push you out of here. We need you.--MONGO 15:28, 21 August 2007 (UTC)
- Thank you, Guy, for that excellent essay.
Don't let the bastards grind you down. Cheers, CWC 17:00, 21 August 2007 (UTC)
Excellent essay. Please come back when you've cleared your head. . --Tbeatty 03:25, 22 August 2007 (UTC)
Indeed, excellent essay. I agree with almost all your points, but - mostly, as technicality - I disagree with 'The Wild West'. I believe there are hundreds of millions of articles we are still missing :). PS. You know, I am stalked by my own 'Rfwoolf'. And the ArbCom has done nothing to stop him. I do wonder if such users will bring the project down... PS2. Please come back, don't leave us, yadda yadda - we had our differences but I believe we need people like you in the project. Hope to see you around,-- Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | talk 00:33, 4 September 2007 (UTC)
May I suggest you restore the 7000+ edits to your talk page? As you've returned to editing, it really should not stay deleted. Natalie 16:24, 24 August 2007 (UTC)
- This really is just a guy that should get back to work or he won't be able to afford his Volvo payments. 61.235.241.114 03:20, 25 August 2007 (UTC)
- Heh! Funny. But I paid cash, as I always do... Guy (Help!) 10:41, 25 August 2007 (UTC)
- Addiction to editing on Wikiulosia will likely cause the loss of job and family. The "me disease" is harmful. 59.151.29.136 14:09, 26 August 2007 (UTC)
- JzG, I totally *get* where you are coming from, but, selfishly, I will MISS YOU around... --Zeraeph 21:11, 22 September 2007 (UTC)
Regarding deletions...
(I hope I type in this correctly in the correct space without deleting anything) Well I have not written it myself, since I'm not neutral perhaps, but I asked for my friends to open an account an I started to wirte something but that was deleted, an then I asked for professional help. Of course writing about family is a bad idea, but is it forbidden? And regarding the deletion of a talk page today that WAS a misstake, I have problem with my connection and I typed while the test was marked and I couldn't restore. OK, sorry, is that fixed?? I just kindly ask you to help me to keep the pages (two of those that we are debating), I have collected so much info to my friends who have helped me and anyone else can offcourse change the page if you like!!--NGL 14:59, 15 September 2007 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Nike George (talk • contribs)
- See the message on your talk page. Guy (Help!) 17:44, 15 September 2007 (UTC)
Oops
I didn't see your edits, until I went through them again. Well, I'm deleting all Bold textthe external links until it can be figured out what is going on, and until notability for the individual articles established. I think the individual articles should just be speedied. KP Botany 23:14, 25 August 2007 (UTC)
- G11 is your friend :-) Guy (Help!) 23:18, 25 August 2007 (UTC)
- Oh, thanks, just what I was looking for. KP Botany 23:21, 25 August 2007 (UTC)
Joy, joy, joy!!!
Truly happy to see you back and supplying your usual straight talk. ;-) Take care, FloNight 01:58, 26 August 2007 (UTC)
- Aye, rock on! Pete.Hurd 04:00, 26 August 2007 (UTC)
- Ah, ditto! Singularity 20:41, 26 August 2007 (UTC)
Finished your redux for you
You probably lost interest, but just in case This is finished and sorted. Jason Harvestdancer | Talk to me 20:30, 27 August 2007 (UTC)
St Christopher Iba Mar Diop College of Medicine
Hi JzG, Glad to see you are back! While I realize that this may not be the best time for this, and the personal pain that this page has caused you, there is an WP:SPA running amok on St Christopher Iba Mar Diop College of Medicine making personal attacks and generally making a mess of the article. I tried the ArbCom enforcement board, but an admin was unwilling to block as the WP:SPA has made a few minor edits (mostly unnecessary capitalization or wikilinks) in other articles. As you are very familiar with the editing history of the page, I would be very interested to have your opinion on it, however, I would understand if you do not wish to visit this page again. Thanks, Leuko 15:06, 28 August 2007 (UTC)
- Thanks! Leuko 15:38, 28 August 2007 (UTC)
- Thanks again, JzG. I noticed that you placed a full-protection template on the page, however the page is only semi-protected. I would endorse full protection to put an end to this counter-productive edit-warring. Thanks, Leuko 15:44, 28 August 2007 (UTC)
Clue deficiency. Fixed now. Frankly I think the project would be better off if that article were a lot shorter. Guy (Help!) 15:48, 28 August 2007 (UTC)
- Hi JzG, whenever you get a chance, can you please see #14 (Protection) and #16 (For JzG) and #12 (edit request) on this page http://en.wikipedia.org/Talk:St_Christopher_Iba_Mar_Diop_College_of_Medicine Thanks in advance for your feedback. Buzybeez 21:16, 29 August 2007 (UTC)
A personal attack targeting you
Toomas Hendrik Ilves (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · block user · block log) made a personal attack targeting you in the now deleted article JzG. I thought that you would like to know about this in case this user is stalking you and you did not know about it. This user also wrote another attack article on another administrator in the now deleted article Moreschi. Jesse Viviano 16:50, 28 August 2007 (UTC)
- Thanks, I think my "frustrated vanity spammer meter" is registering 100% on that one. Guy (Help!) 16:53, 28 August 2007 (UTC)
- I am sorry if I make you distressed with the above notice, but I feel that administrators should stick together and help each other withstand trolls. By the way, due to the attacks, this account now has a final warning regarding attacks. Jesse Viviano 16:54, 28 August 2007 (UTC)
- Looks like this troll is indef blocked by someone else. Jesse Viviano 16:55, 28 August 2007 (UTC)
- Could also have been username blocked. No biggie, though, just a garden-variety troll. Guy (Help!) 17:01, 28 August 2007 (UTC)
- Looks like this troll is indef blocked by someone else. Jesse Viviano 16:55, 28 August 2007 (UTC)
Sectarian Movement
Dont agree with your claim that protestant is the same as sectarian. Two completely different things.BigDunc 15:42, 30 August 2007 (UTC)
- But in the absence of a more recent citation, it will do. Guy (Help!) 16:33, 30 August 2007 (UTC)
The THF thing
Guy, I think you have done a good job of remaining neutral and fair in this dispute, and I will go out on a limb and say THF would agree. Would you be willing to open an ArbCom case to iron this out? I don't think it would be a good idea for either THF or myself to do it, because I think neither of us has the ability to present the questions posed in a productive manner. --David Shankbone 18:39, 31 August 2007 (UTC)
You don't know me but...
Smile at others by adding {{subst:Smile}} to their talk page with a friendly message.
- It's good to see you back at wikipedia. Sheffield Steelstalkers 18:45, 31 August 2007 (UTC)
Welcome back
Welcome back! I hope that your WikiBreak was enjoyable/restful/(insert other adjective as appropriate : )
Whether I may or may not agree with your opinion in any specific instance is immaterial (though imo, I think you do try to be fair). Imho I think you (among many others) do a necessary, but often underappreciated, set of tasks around here, and it's nice to see you "back at it". : )
I hope you're having a great day : ) - jc37 09:44, 2 September 2007 (UTC)
fring
hi there
as per your comment in the afd "Delete on balance, I think. The content is advertorial in style, and the references all appear to be traceable back to press releases and other non-independent sources. I don't think this is making its mark, and I suspect that the article is part of a campaign to fix that. Guy (Help!) 17:13, 1 September 2007 (UTC)"
The idea of this article is to educate people. Please help me edit the article so that it is not advertising. I don't understand what you mean about the references, also what is the difference between the fring article and the skype, Pidgin IM, ICQ, twitter and Googletalk articles, the list is endless. I used those articles as samples when making the fring article, so if fring goes then the others must also go must'nt they?
now i am confused please help me. Thanx simon Goplett 11:23, 2 September 2007 (UTC)
- Sorry, you'd need to pick someone who actually cares about that product. All I see is something being promoted on Misplaced Pages, and I'm not big on that. Comparison with massive global players like Skype and ICQ is unhelpful - a bit like asking that your garage band be included because we have an article on The Beatles. You need to find substantial critical (as in analytical) editorial comment about the company, not mere reprints of press releases. A writeup of the company in one of the major business magazines is always a good place to start. Guy (Help!) 11:27, 2 September 2007 (UTC)
- Could you at least tell me what is viewed as advertising in the article so I can remove that text.
mmm so if I understand you correctly if fring becomes a massive global player then they can get to advertise on wiki like Skype and ICQ? Either the article is an advert or it isnt, even global players like skype and ICQ can't have advertising space?? or am i wrong. The article is not intended as advertising! fring is a global player in over a 150 countries, may i ask what defines a global player? Please help me not to loose my confidence in wikipedia. It seems to me that even if there is no advertising in the article they will still delete it. Goplett 15:36, 2 September 2007 (UTC)
Thanks
Welcome back.
Thanks for your support at WP:AN/I. I was, in fact, wrong about the specific incident that set me off, but right on the generalities of the situation and -- I'm glad to hear you say -- right, essentially, on the policy issue. I'd give you one of Raul's Common Sense Bricks, but I don't feel comfortable giving out someone else's barnstars, and besides, you already have one, it looks like.
As I said at WP:AN/I, NeutralHomer doesn't seem able to track subtlety very well, so I don't know whether it will do any good or whether he will fall back on the vaguely conspiratorial language he resorts to when I'm not summarily banned from Misplaced Pages on his say-so. I know which way to bet, though.
Again, thank you, and welcome back. --Calton | Talk 12:07, 2 September 2007 (UTC)
Well
Hi,
Since you've directly rebuffed personal dialog, I will be moving the article back to mainspace for the duration of DRV, as I feel your move was improper, and you have chosen not to offer an explanation. I request that you do not blank this message (actually, I'd like you to restore my other one too) Best wishes, Xoloz 14:02, 2 September 2007 (UTC)
- I did offer an explanation (at DRV). I'm not opposed to dialogue, but I don't see that spreading it to multiple venues helps much. I am not very active right now, and didn't see much point. I also want to avoid the vast talk pages that I have historically had, they don't load on my Blackberry and take months to load over 3G. Nothing personal, you understand. Guy (Help!) 15:28, 2 September 2007 (UTC)
- While I gladly accept your explanation, I was on the verge of taking it personally for a minute there! :) I really never understand when people blank individual messages off their userpages, especially if the message expresses a concern over a prior lack of communication. Anyway, I hope my explanation at the DRV meets your satisfaction, because the course of action I pursued was quite typical. Perhaps, being less active, one might find it even more prudent to consult with others, more involved in a given set of circumstances, before assuming that "something is fishy". Just a suggestion for the future. Best wishes, Xoloz 15:55, 2 September 2007 (UTC)
Welcome back
Good to see you back in the saddle. Illegitimi non carborundum. Raymond Arritt 15:58, 2 September 2007 (UTC)
- Agreed - good to see you back. Orderinchaos 17:00, 2 September 2007 (UTC)
Thank you
...for correcting me on the GFDL thing. I was thinking that it didn't matter if the stuff was copied back to the creator's userspace, but you're absolutely right, your way makes more sense. VigilancePrime has the makings of a great contributor to our community, and I would like to mentor him/her past any inadvertant mistakes; I have to admit that Calton's rude messages on that talk page raised my hackles, because I don't want to lose a productive member due to something stupid and unnecessary. Thanks again. Respectfully - Videmus Omnia 16:14, 2 September 2007 (UTC)
- No problem, VigilancePrime's error was small but worth correcting, I'm sure he won't do it again. He also needs to remove the laundry list of vandals from his user page. I'm not being drawn on Calton. Guy (Help!) 16:17, 2 September 2007 (UTC)
ArbCom
Thanks for the advice, I will follow it. I haven't been sure how much of a case to build at this point, so I have focused on generalities with a few diffs. If I have been going about it wrong at this point, let me know, because I can supply ample diffs, although I figured since the case has not proceeded it would be better to wait until it does. --David Shankbone 18:42, 2 September 2007 (UTC)
Possible BLP issue
An AfD was put up by a relatively new contributor, Ontheveldt (talk · contribs · logs), as his 3rd contribution to en.Misplaced Pages. His second contribution to Misplaced Pages was to create the category, People from Middletown, Ohio, Dr Jan Adams' hometown. However, instead of immediately adding Dr Jan Adams to this category, he immediately nominated Dr Jan Adams for deletion. I suspect this is personal between Ontheveldt and Dr Jan Adams, however, I'm on wiki-break, and if you or someone watching your talk page, would monitor this situation if something more develops, I would appreciate it? Yes, yes, I know everyone is thinking, "Damn, Ontheveldt is more[REDACTED] savvy in just 2 edits than KP Botany will ever be." Be that as it may, BLPs and agendas don't mix well on Misplaced Pages. Thanks. KP Botany 20:07, 2 September 2007 (UTC)
Hiya
Good to see you again! >Radiant< 07:18, 3 September 2007 (UTC)
Another strange article
After the COI post at WP:AN, I thought I'd point out Malie Hidarnejad to you. What do you make of that? Carcharoth 23:35, 3 September 2007 (UTC)
resolved
hi I noticed on my complaint about user MJis4freaks you have "resolved" it, how? I cant see anything on his user page. Let me no. Realist2 10:23, 4 September 2007 (UTC)
- I think this user thinks that there should be a Blocked section on his userpage or have one of those indefinitely blocked templates on his/her userpage (like {{Banned user}}). x42bn6 Talk Mess 10:51, 4 September 2007 (UTC)
Misplaced Pages:Requests for arbitration/THF-DavidShankBone
Hello,
An Arbitration case involving you has been opened: Misplaced Pages:Requests for arbitration/THF-DavidShankBone. Please add any evidence you may wish the Arbitrators to consider to the evidence sub-page, Misplaced Pages:Requests for arbitration/THF-DavidShankBone/Evidence. You may also contribute to the case on the workshop sub-page, Misplaced Pages:Requests for arbitration/THF-DavidShankBone/Workshop.
On behalf of the Arbitration Committee, Picaroon (t) 18:06, 4 September 2007 (UTC)
Admin
Just a note...you told VigilancePrime that Calton is an "experienced administrator". No, he isn't, actually. He's not an admin. And isn't that the MOST important thing on Misplaced Pages? That the information is correct, no matter how you go about wording it or how rude you are when you say it? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.35.127.0 (talk) 06:34, 5 September 2007 (UTC)
User:CyclePat
Just a notification that not only hasn't he given up, he seems determined to escalate things. Note your name on the case. --Calton | Talk 11:10, 5 September 2007 (UTC)
Hi Guy, just out of courtesy, I'm letting you know that I put an RFArb in for CyclePat as you suggested to do so, but as you're named as a party, you may still wish to comment at Misplaced Pages:Requests_for_arbitration#CyclePat. Best of luck :-) Ryan Postlethwaite 13:17, 5 September 2007 (UTC)
- Yup, thanks. Needs to be sorted once and for all, I think. Guy (Help!) 13:34, 5 September 2007 (UTC)
Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion/Don Murphy (2nd nomination)
Er, forget something? --Calton | Talk 14:43, 5 September 2007 (UTC)
- TW did not post the nom, and I had to go and do that shit they pay me for. Done now. Guy (Help!) 14:45, 5 September 2007 (UTC)
- Good one, SqueakBox 18:11, 5 September 2007 (UTC)
- No way in hell it should be deleted in my opinion, Guy, looking at the last just about unanimous AfD to keep, but I'll sit back now that I've commented and tag the SPA's as they appear (one already, what's the over/under, 5, 10?) SirFozzie 18:15, 5 September 2007 (UTC)
No real opinion, Murphy asked so I passed it on, which is only fair after all. Guy 21:35, 5 September 2007 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 193.109.81.203 (talk)
Guy, I really wish you'd simply let Don Murphy sue for Libel. He's unlikely to have a case, and we could use some precedent. Further, the incredibly contentious nature of his entire presence as a pair of words anywhere on Misplaced Pages's already resulted in the loss of H, after threats. I don't know why the OFFICE chickened out back then, except that H's leaving meant the issue was 'settled', but really, this is above the pay grade of all the volunteers here. That said, if there's a deletion, which looks unlikely, please salt the earth there, so we can simply avoid this ever again. ThuranX 18:15, 8 September 2007 (UTC)
proms
Went to the proms today - Beethoven, Brahms, surprise extra the Academic Festival Overture, saw Joanna Lumley, met Richard Stilgoe and ran into a friend from the horn society. Good evening out! Guy 21:32, 5 September 2007 (UTC)
Non-help on help page
Hi, while glancing at your help page, I noticed a section at the end that does not look like it belongs there, but rather somewhere else. Check it out. Jjamison 05:07, 7 September 2007 (UTC)
- Thanks for that. Guy (Help!) 08:22, 7 September 2007 (UTC)
Welcome back
Welcome back, Guy!!! -- Avi 12:36, 7 September 2007 (UTC)
- Yes, I'm slow on the uptake. -- Avi 12:37, 7 September 2007 (UTC)
Gastrich's latest petition
It is my belief that some of the sock puppets aren't Gastrich. I have reason to believe that User:Hugo the Hippo is a sock puppet of banned user User_talk:Bible John. This in no way excuses Gastrich's behavior, and in fact given his history the accusation is justified, but pointing out that his claim that he is being framed isn't entirely false. Jason Harvestdancer | Talk to me 21:03, 7 September 2007 (UTC)
- And it's my belief that some of them are - and in any case it doesn't matter. There are two things Gastrich wants: to promote Gastrich, and to promote his agenda. Neither of those is compatible with policy. He is incapable fo editing within policy, he misperceives his own bias as neutrality, and I would be staggered if any other admin who has dealt with him would give you any answer other than "hell no!" Guy (Help!) 21:49, 7 September 2007 (UTC)
|
The Special Barnstar | |
| To Guy: For his administrative actions in the most recent Gastrich affair, showing patience, objectivity, fairness, and understanding of all related issues. - Nascentatheist 05:53, 9 September 2007 (UTC) |
PDMA
Why did you delete the PDMA article? Nzgabriel 21:42, 9 September 2007 (UTC)
- Same reason as last time: it was advertorial for an organisation with no obvious claim to notability. Guy (Help!) 22:02, 9 September 2007 (UTC)
- You note that you believe I am connected with the PDMA organisation which is untrue . Nzgabriel 03:46, 11 September 2007 (UTC)
- I did, first time (I believe I found the link at WP:COIN). This time I did not. But that is not relevant. Guy (Help!) 06:40, 11 September 2007 (UTC)
Proab
Hi JzG,
I didn't remove the notice. I archived it because it was fully addressed + there is no reason to insist in shouting personal information on the streets. Nothing is achieved by your revert of mine . --Aminz 07:07, 11 September 2007 (UTC)
- I am waiting for your response JzG. Please discuss it in the talk page of the relevant page where I opened a section explaining my edit. --Aminz 07:29, 11 September 2007 (UTC)
- Yes, and you've been waiting for a whole 20 minutes at 8:30am my local time, which time I spent getting ready for work. The issue is not "addressed", it is a notice of an arbitration enforcement. Guy (Help!) 07:32, 11 September 2007 (UTC)
- JzG, you blocked Proab because you wanted for people to see his personal identity for 24 hours. "It needs to stay there for at least 24 hours to let people see it, so for that period you are blocked from editing". You even opposed its archival. even after the issue was discussed by Arbcom members and Morven wrote a summary of the discussion. I'll leave the issue. The notice is there. Enjoy it! --Aminz 07:41, 11 September 2007 (UTC)
- I have looked into it more since then. The original thing that was removed was a complaint with diffs and links that was problematic. Morven's notice was a factual statement with no external links. If people have a problem with this then they need to take it up with the arbitrators. I am not comfortable with multiply-blocked edit warriors removing this or any other arbitration notice. Guy (Help!) 08:40, 11 September 2007 (UTC)
- I didn't remove it. I archived it because the case was brought to the attention of the committee and as a result Proab was placed on probation. That's it. The rest is your desire for "people to see it". To let them know of the personal identity of a[REDACTED] user. That was the logic behind your block: "It needs to stay there for at least 24 hours to let people see it, so for that period you are blocked from editing". Proab had only informed the Office, one arbitrator and a number of admins. He hadn't informed all arbitrators and admins; and that was certainly his error, but maybe he couldn't have informed "all" admins because someone was about to reveal his identity.
- JzG, I am a human being and as much as you are, having a physical brain working in a similar way as yours. I come here with my arguments not with my personality or my contribution list or others. Please comment on the statements, not on the editors. --Aminz 09:16, 11 September 2007 (UTC)
- I have looked into it more since then. The original thing that was removed was a complaint with diffs and links that was problematic. Morven's notice was a factual statement with no external links. If people have a problem with this then they need to take it up with the arbitrators. I am not comfortable with multiply-blocked edit warriors removing this or any other arbitration notice. Guy (Help!) 08:40, 11 September 2007 (UTC)
- JzG, you blocked Proab because you wanted for people to see his personal identity for 24 hours. "It needs to stay there for at least 24 hours to let people see it, so for that period you are blocked from editing". You even opposed its archival. even after the issue was discussed by Arbcom members and Morven wrote a summary of the discussion. I'll leave the issue. The notice is there. Enjoy it! --Aminz 07:41, 11 September 2007 (UTC)
- Yes, and you've been waiting for a whole 20 minutes at 8:30am my local time, which time I spent getting ready for work. The issue is not "addressed", it is a notice of an arbitration enforcement. Guy (Help!) 07:32, 11 September 2007 (UTC)
- The WP:AE post was drawing this to the attention of the wider community. Above all, the problem is entirely of Proabivouac's own making - he did not have to evade his ArbCom sanctions and he did not have to go straight back to the same problematic behaviour. I have asked ArbCom to clarify. Now drop it. Guy (Help!) 09:19, 11 September 2007 (UTC)
- That Proab acted incorrectly is clear. Yes, at times he may have shown problematic behaviour but this doesn't justify a straight generalization. He is a generally good and smart editor and I think there are many many editors on[REDACTED] who will agree with me.
- Thanks for asking for clarification from ArbCom. It is none of business anyways. Peace :) --Aminz 09:32, 11 September 2007 (UTC)
- Ye,s it is ArbCom's business, and they can make the call. Guy (Help!) 09:49, 11 September 2007 (UTC)
On the same subject, is there any paticular reason the block isnt quite considerably long because of his use of sockpuppets to evade the sanctions? Or is arbcom dealing? Viridae 09:21, 11 September 2007 (UTC)
- You are free to block him for longer, I guess. I don't think what he did was especially bad, but causing drama is only likely to draw more attention to the thing he'd rather hide. It's fine for an editor to change accounts to protect their real-world identity, but it's not fine for them to change accounts in order to evade a sanction. It's fine to change accounts to distance oneself from past misdeed,s, it's not fine to do it in order to distance oneself from the consequences of such misdeeds and thereby gain time to carry on the same problem behaviour. I'm undecided about whether Proabivouac is a net positive to the project. Guy (Help!) 09:25, 11 September 2007 (UTC)
Proabivouac has been the target of sustained harassment, some from pov warriors and some from banned users running socks. In spite of it he does a lot of good scholarly work on some difficult pages, and makes a significant positive contribution. More than most editors, people of differing views recognize the value of his work. Tom Harrison 11:08, 11 September 2007 (UTC)
- I'm happy to take your word on that. Guy (Help!) 11:52, 11 September 2007 (UTC)
Chrome (XM)
I have noticed you have deleted the channel page a second time after having a stub tag placed on the page. I do not know your definition of content-free, but that page does have information on it that is of value. If you disagree with this, please expand the page with more content or ask other editors to edit the page before outright deleting the page. TravKoolBreeze 13:12, 11 September 2007 (UTC)
- It's a directory entry for a minor facet of a company that already has an article. Guy (Help!) 15:25, 11 September 2007 (UTC)
- An editor has asked for a deletion review of Chrome (XM). Since you closed the deletion discussion for this article or speedy-deleted it, you might want to participate in the deletion review. TravKoolBreeze 14:38, 12 September 2007 (UTC)
Travelport, Galileo CRS and Jeff Clarke (CEO)
On 9/7 you deleted these three entries: Travelport, Galileo CRS and Jeff Clarke (CEO). After reading your cited justification for the deletion, we've discovered that there are some footnotes that referenced press releases and the company website that, while common in other notable corporate profiles, did indeed violate the terms of the policy and will be revised or deleted. Aside from those points, the entries did not contain promotional language and there was strict adherence to referencing third party sources for every factual claim, including Forbes, the NY Times and the Financial Times. As a corporation, Travelport exceeds the criteria for being noteworthy in the context of companies listed on the Misplaced Pages "List of American Companies" with 2006 revenue of $2.6 billion, approx. 7,500 employees and operations in 145 countries. The company is also an important part of the Orbitz and Blackstone stories, both of which recently became public companies. In addition to his relevance to Travelport, Jeff Clarke was also an integral part of one of the largest mergers in the history of the PC industry (HP/Compaq). References for these types of claims were included in the original entries.
Were there any other problems with the entries other than what was outlined in CSD G11? Since the basic criteria for Misplaced Pages content appears to have been met, I'd like to take your feedback and improve the entries. TP kelli 14:12, 11 September 2007 (UTC)
- Misplaced Pages is not a directory, not an advertisement hoarding, and not the place to promote a business. Also, we have a conflict of interest guideline. Your own company and it's glitterati are a bad idea for an article. Guy (Help!) 08:29, 12 September 2007 (UTC)
Hampl, Punto, Leutgeb ...
Hello. Thank you for your greetings. Sorry, because my english is also "not up to this". I'm a Horn player als amateur but i'm interrestet in history of horn and of horn players like Hampl etc. So i wish you, to make no "kikser" on your horn. --- 217.233.122.176 —Preceding unsigned comment added by 217.233.122.176 (talk) 14:29, 11 September 2007 (UTC)
Motorized Bicycles
Thanks for your help pruning the external links on the Motorized bicycles page! Your help is very... helpful! Fbagatelleblack 15:59, 11 September 2007 (UTC)
Since you were wondering...
...this is typical behaviour of this user when interacting with others, as summarized here. Icemuon 17:20, 11 September 2007 (UTC)
Republic Magazine deletion
I would like to know why the page for Republic Magazine was deleted. This was the answer YOU gave: (CSD G11: Blatant Advertising Bi-monthly, started in July? That's, what, two or three issues so far? No chance.)
What dont you understand about the term "bi-monthly"?? Bi-monthly is EVERY TWO MONTHS. The first issue came out in July and was for "July/August", the 2nd issue is out NOW and is for "September/October". There is only TWO issues in existence, July/August and September/October. Bi-monthly-----> every TWO months, not bi-weekly, which is twice a month. Did you think I was referring to bi-weekly? You must have. I would like the page back up. I dont appreciate you just deleting it without being warned. If I was warned, I could have told you the meaning of the term "bi-monthly" in advance.
I dont even understand your reason why it was deleted. You said "started in July? thats, what, two or three issues so far? no chance". I dont even understand that. How many issues did you think there should have been since July? If it was bi-weekly that would mean about 5 issues would exist. If it was monthly, about 3 issues would exist. I did not say how many issues were in existence on the page. I just mentioned underneath the picture of the magazine with Ron Paul on it that it was the 2nd issue----which was CORRECT, since the 2nd issue is for September/October. What exactly did you not understand? Im not trying to be smartassed---I really dont know what you misinterpreted. Please put the page back up, because if it's not, I will know it was removed out of biased reasons. I'm a writer, I will do a story on wikipedia's blatant censorship if it's not restored. I will have the proof, so it wont be libel. 24.170.225.64 07:22, 12 September 2007 (UTC)
- This is an encycloapedia. It exists to document that whicih is already verifiably significant, not promote that which people hope one day will be. Political activist magazines are a dime a dozen, and this one only just shipped its second issue. Guy (Help!) 08:25, 12 September 2007 (UTC)
Why the reverts and re-reverts?
Eeeek. Whats going on, Guy? Rockpocket 07:53, 12 September 2007 (UTC)
- Was kinda wondering too ... - Alison ☺ 08:26, 12 September 2007 (UTC)
- Lack of Clue - I went to revert titface's edits and clicked your contribs by mistake. Half asleep. Guy (Help!) 08:27, 12 September 2007 (UTC)
- Heh! I know what that's like. 1:30am here and I'm stuck in work. Get some sleep, the two of you! :) - Alison ☺ 08:28, 12 September 2007 (UTC)
- 09:29 here, and into the second cup of coffee - I'll be awake Real Soon Now. Guy (Help!) 08:30, 12 September 2007 (UTC)
- Ha ha. No worries. I just thought for a moment the troll had cloned your account somehow and was carrying on his revert spree. At this time of night anything seems possible! Rockpocket 08:53, 12 September 2007 (UTC)
- 09:29 here, and into the second cup of coffee - I'll be awake Real Soon Now. Guy (Help!) 08:30, 12 September 2007 (UTC)
- Heh! I know what that's like. 1:30am here and I'm stuck in work. Get some sleep, the two of you! :) - Alison ☺ 08:28, 12 September 2007 (UTC)
BIG Daddy M
Regarding this, who did you suspect him of being? Just curious, but his tone is very much alike to this guy's, not to mention the fact that this is another editor who wars for no reason and edits Wrestling-related and comic-related articles. Lord Sesshomaru (talk • edits) 23:25, 12 September 2007 (UTC)
- Let's not speculate further, shall we? Guy (Help!) 23:30, 12 September 2007 (UTC)
I meant no harm, there's no further evidence to support this theory anyway. Sorry for the inconvenience. Lord Sesshomaru (talk • edits) 23:37, 12 September 2007 (UTC)
Merge
You may be interested in Talk:California Biblical University and Seminary#Merge proposal. KillerChihuahua 10:34, 13 September 2007 (UTC)
OTRS Question
I noticed you made a deletion related to this. Didn't know if you wanted to reply to it or not. Just a heads up more than anything. Have a great day. ^demon 15:12, 13 September 2007 (UTC)
- I commented in the otrs irc channel that someone else should reply, since I was the one who nuked it. Guy (Help!) 15:16, 13 September 2007 (UTC)
- I wasn't in channel so I missed that, sorry. I'll take care of it now. I've also watchlisted the article in question. ^demon 16:48, 13 September 2007 (UTC)
- No problem. I always think "I nuked it" looks less than caring in these circumstances, but it's what it needed; better to say "it has been deleted as failing blah blah" and have it come from an independent individual, IMO. Guy (Help!) 19:35, 13 September 2007 (UTC)
Great work, keep it up
|
The Defender of the Wiki Barnstar | |
| For detecting and quashing racist propaganda in Misplaced Pages. TeaDrinker 18:23, 14 September 2007 (UTC) |
Thanks for RfA support and a question
Thanks very much for your support in my recently successful RfA. I appreciated your comment!
Since you seem to be online, I just blocked WillyOffOfWheels (talk · contribs) with account creation disabled as a meme of the infamous WillyOnWheels. Is this appropriate? The guy's feigning ignorance on his talk page. Cheers! -- Flyguy649 contribs 18:41, 14 September 2007 (UTC)
- Of course. He's gaming the system and can be ignored. Guy (Help!) 20:14, 14 September 2007 (UTC)
- That's what I figured. -- Flyguy649 contribs 06:53, 15 September 2007 (UTC)
User:Edgarde/IPC
DGG is being commendably considerate of the right to vanish, but actually this is a subpage and is GFDL'd so I've restored it and moved it ot User:Edgarde/IPC for you. Guy (Help!) 20:03, 14 September 2007 (UTC)
- Super duper! This is everything I would have asked for if I thought I could have it. Thank you a lot. / edg ☺ ★ 20:08, 14 September 2007 (UTC)
Misplaced Pages:Requests for arbitration/Attack sites opened
Hello, JzG. The arbitration case in which you commented to has opened. Please provide evidences on the evidence page for the Arbitrators to consider. You may also want to utilize the workshop page for suggestions.
For the Arbitration Committee,
- Penwhale | 21:04, 14 September 2007 (UTC)
"Usual crap"
Do you really think "usual crap" is a civil way to conduct a discussion? Kappa 22:45, 14 September 2007 (UTC)
- Depends. If it's the owner of a website whose article has been deleted coming up with the usual crap about how if we have an article on Facebook then we should have an article on every single social networking site in the known universe, then yes. Actually if they came here themselves I'd just tell them to fuck off. Guy (Help!) 22:48, 14 September 2007 (UTC)
Larry Craig
I'm wondering why you removed the infobox from his article. He is, after all, a convicted criminal, and there's no question of this being a BLP issue - U.S. senators are clearly public figures whose criminal behaviour should be publicly reported. FCYTravis 22:52, 14 September 2007 (UTC)
- {{infobox criminal}} is for people who are first and foremost criminals, as I understand it. But mainly it was about the image, which existed primarily to disparage the subject. I just removed the lot since we already have an appropriate infobox on that page. Guy (Help!) 22:59, 14 September 2007 (UTC)
- And I restored the image, because... we don't speedily delete things which are "disparaging" if they may be encyclopedically relevant to the article subject. We're not talking about Brian Peppers here, we're talking about a U.S. senator. I find it a very arguable point that a U.S. senator's police mugshot may be quite relevant to an article about a U.S. senator who is now embroiled in a major scandal relating to his criminal activities. That's a discussion worth having, and I don't know which way I fall just yet, but I don't think it should be speedied. FCYTravis 23:07, 14 September 2007 (UTC)
- Yes we do, WP:CSD#G10. Guy (Help!) 23:11, 14 September 2007 (UTC)
- I dispute your contention that a mugshot image is in and of itself unbalanced and disparaging. If placed in proper context, it is part of a balanced encyclopedia biography. A page consisting of nothing but a mugshot and "OMG CRIMINAL" would fit CSD G10, but this is not that. FCYTravis 23:15, 14 September 2007 (UTC)
- Things I hate about WP:BLP no. 7: it forces us to take a cautious approach and defend people who are, in real life, indefensible. We already have a picture, we know what he looks like. We have citations for the events. We don't need a mugshot to drive home, in your words, "OMG! CRIMINAL!" It adds nothing other than a gleeful celebration of his misfortune. Proverbs 1:26 is a lesson in life for bigots everywhere but a poor practice on Misplaced Pages. Guy (Help!) 23:30, 14 September 2007 (UTC)
Stereotypes of East and Southeast Asians
Is this the sort of thing you were hoping for at Stereotypes of East and Southeast Asians? If I'm on the right track, i'll continue, if not, please clarify. ThuranX 23:19, 14 September 2007 (UTC)
- Anything that replaces the crap with cited and neutral content (read: hopefully dry enough to drive off the whack-jobs but interesting enough to keep anyone who is serious about the subject proper) is good. Please do carry on. Guy (Help!) 23:26, 14 September 2007 (UTC)
I knocked out 8K of uncited crap, a serious amount of COATRACKing, some areas where there was actual promotion of steroetypes, etc., etc. I'm off for some friday night time, but take a look and let me know what you think, perhaps on the talk page there? ThuranX 01:00, 15 September 2007 (UTC)
finished my run through the article. It's 11K shorter, I dropped almost anytthign I saw as unsourced and promoting or just stating a stereotype without review or citaiton in its' section, and so I think it's a stronger article. If it needs moer work, I would appreciate the guidance... ThuranX 04:24, 17 September 2007 (UTC)
NYLT
Would you please elaborate on the {{accuracy}} tag just applied to National Youth Leadership Training. It is difficult to fix what we don't know is wrong. Thanks. --Gadget850 ( Ed) 12:51, 15 September 2007 (UTC)
- I'd love to, but the complainant was insufficiently specific. I've asked him to comment on the talk page. Guy (Help!) 14:02, 15 September 2007 (UTC)
- Thanks. I figure you are the middleman between this and OTRS. I think we have been here before. BTW- {{accuracy}} redirects to {{disputed}}. --Gadget850 ( Ed) 14:27, 15 September 2007 (UTC)
Please enlight me
Wondering why you just deleted my article on Sigrid Lidströmer. You wrote "lacks significans". So you think she wasn't significant? Since you must know a lot about this - in what way was she unimportant? I'd like to learn that. My ears are open... 18:21, 15 September 2007 (UTC)18:21, 15 September 2007 (UTC)18:21, 15 September 2007 (UTC)18:21, 15 September 2007 (UTC)
- See WP:CSD#A7. Any chance you're going to stop arguing about your articles on your family? Guy (Help!) 18:27, 15 September 2007 (UTC)
Angry Nintendo Nerd
Since Angry Video Game Nerd is now a protected redirect to ScrewAttack, I had the thought that Angry Nintendo Nerd might do well as a protected redirect too. I'm checking with you because you were the last admin to deal with it. Whaddaya think? --UsaSatsui 21:05, 15 September 2007 (UTC)
Sigrid Lidströmer
Hello. You speedied Sigrid Lidströmer, saying that the article did not assert significance.
The article is very messy and does not seem to assert major significance. However, it does seem to assert minor significance, indeed, quite a lot more significance than that of many pop singers and Pokemon who are lovingly written up in this "encyclopedia". As I've mentioned here, I don't see it as speediable material and I urge you to restore it. -- Hoary 22:23, 15 September 2007 (UTC)
- Guy, it appears that Hoary's account has been hijacked, as he's arguing for keeping an article. I thought she was the translator? KP Botany 22:38, 15 September 2007 (UTC)
If you feel an admin has done you wrong, try talking to them. Nicely. I don't merely "feel" but rather I think that you did wrong to Sigrid Lidströmer, an article that was mediocre, perhaps AfD-worthy, but not obviously speedy-worthy. Niceness is hardly my forte, but I'll try: Please undelete this, and, if you wish, take it to AfD. Thank you. -- Hoary 00:32, 18 September 2007 (UTC)
- Hello again. No reply, so I moved what was in a scratchpad page of the writer to Sigrid Lidströmer. Of course you're free to AfD it, but I think you'll agree that it's hardly speediable. -- Hoary 12:21, 22 September 2007 (UTC)
- She was a translator. She translated some stuff. Some of this stuff had not been translated before. She corresponded with the author of at least some of the stuff she translated. All we need now is a claim of encyclopaedic notability and we're away. Guy (Help!) 12:58, 22 September 2007 (UTC)
- If you think the subject is short on notability, you are of course very free to send the article to AfD. The steps involved are rather tiresome, of course; so as a gesture of amicability or whatever I'll even send it to AfD for you, if you ask me to. -- Hoary 15:38, 22 September 2007 (UTC)
BLP Issue
Is there anything you can do about this editor's rants on the Anna Wilding talk page? User:Real77? He claims he represents Ms. Wilding, but all I can think is I sure as hell hope not, for her sake, since I don't have a serious grudge against her (unlike my grudge against User:Hoary). I've asked User:Acalamari to assist with editing the page, but Real77 is chasing all the good editor's away, and no one can get in there to edit. In addition to which the talk page is a stream of indecipherable rants. My concern now is that the talk page looks like such a piece of ranting shit that it will ultimately reflect poorly upon Ms. Wilding and the article as part of its permanent history. I feel this is a legitimate concern, although an unusual one, for a BLP, that an editor claims to be representing the subject of the article, but is indirectly, by their actions, trashing the hell out of the person. It is extremely difficult to impress anything upon this editor, Real77, because of what appears to be a serious English language barrier. I don't know what's going on, but I don't think editors should have unlimited rights to make a living person look like shit on Misplaced Pages, even if they really are representing them. KP Botany 06:23, 16 September 2007 (UTC)
- Many of the IPs are his, also. And he refers to himself oddly in the first person plural all of the time, having various excuses for this, "my wife is in the room," and "it's none of your business," being two I vaguely recall.
- KP Botany 06:26, 16 September 2007 (UTC)
- Oh, nice, he just made a legal threat. KP Botany 06:28, 16 September 2007 (UTC)
DRV Image:Larry Craig mugshot.jpg
You were invloved in the deletion of the image now being addressed at Misplaced Pages:Deletion_review#Image:Larry_Craig_mugshot.jpg. Please consider participating in that discussion. -- Jreferee 08:50, 16 September 2007 (UTC)
An editor has asked for a deletion review of Image:Larry Craig mugshot.jpg. Since you closed the deletion discussion for this article or speedy-deleted it, you might want to participate in the deletion review. →Lwalt 09:01, 16 September 2007 (UTC)
Chrome (XM)
Now why on earth did you delete this page 3 times. It is not a7, so I don't know where you got that idea and it is definitley not a G11. Perhaps you don't remember what an a7 is. An a7 is a tag for a blatant advertisement of a product or service. Now was that really an advertisement? No. Every other damn page for an XM channel has not been deleted. You might as well just add XM tags to the other 120 XM Channel pages on Wiki. Perhaps semi-protecting it, but you trying to get that blocked is wrong. Obviously you have no clue as to the policies that have been set fourth here, and i strongly suggest you be instructed in the proper mode of editing wikipedia. I'm contacting a few more administrators.--NightRider63 15:30, 16 September 2007 (UTC)
- I'm just wondering how often I'm going to have to say this. It was an article that did not assert notability (WP:CSD#A7). It said this is one of the brands of XM (on which we have an article), I'd have redirected it only nobody but us refers to it as Chrome (XM), that was a made-up title. I put the link to XM Satellite Radio into Chrome, the disambiguation page. Guy (Help!) 16:00, 16 September 2007 (UTC)
MediaDefender
Actually, a reliable source isn't as necessary when the facts are easily verifiable. --M1ss1ontomars2k4 19:02, 17 September 2007 (UTC)
- You might want to read WP:ATT, WP:RS and the like. Nothing wrong with reposting with reliable sources, but reposting with the same crap sources is not on. Guy (Help!) 22:24, 17 September 2007 (UTC)
What I find funny is that users say that TorrentFreak and the like are not "reliable". However when it comes to popular blogs such as engadget, people immediately seem to find that source "reliable". Excuse me, but I don't see how famous newsapers, blogs, and all that other crap makes you think it's reliable. What if all the sources you call reliable all disappeared into nowhere? It's all crazy talk if you ask me, utter shit actually. Now stop reverting it, PLEASE. 208.127.155.20 23:07, 17 September 2007 (UTC)
- I think you may be confusing me with other people. I have never called engadget a reliable source. Please cite reliable sources. Guy (Help!) 23:08, 17 September 2007 (UTC)
- I never said you yourself called it a reliable source. Popular != reliable. 208.127.155.20 23:30, 17 September 2007 (UTC)
Vopt AfD
Kindly review the responses posted to the Vopt article RitaSkeeter 06:28, 19 September 2007 (UTC)
- Kindly add the assertions of notability to the article. Guy (Help!) 06:33, 19 September 2007 (UTC)
I trust you will take another look at the article as well as the AfD discussion and have the good sense to keep the article as revised --RitaSkeeter 15:59, 19 September 2007 (UTC)
- But it's still a directory entry. Why not include some of the colour mentioned in the AfD debate? know this is en encyclopaedia, but that article is a dry-as-dust description of what reads as an essentially generic product. Guy (Help!) 17:17, 19 September 2007 (UTC)
SqueakBox
Guy, I appreciate your open mindedness about SqueakBox but really he does not invariably meet reason with reason. When my request to not depopulate a category without going through CfD is met by accusations that I'm enamored with the rape victims category, I find this unreasonable. When SqueakBox routinely accuses editors of secret pedophile-supporting agendas, oblivious to the fact that, hey, maybe just maybe some people wouldn't be too happy to be labeled pedophiles for closing an AfD as speedy keep, I call that unreasonable. That's not to say SqueakBox can't be a productive editor: he often is. But he can also be a tendentious editor. Of course, this is partly explained by his involvement in articles in which edit warring, POV pushing and sockpuppetry are routine. That does not make it any more acceptable. It is possible to be a member of WP:PAW without being a dick with everyone you find in your way, it is possible to fight POV pushing pedophiles without "boldly" removing a perfectly decent article about an absurdly objectionable subject, it is possible to fight for tougher applications of BLP without attempting to change one of the fundamental principles of the deletion policy without any sort of discussion . A few weeks ago at ANI, Jimbo commented on the recent controversy with Perverted Justice and said something like "what we need is more passionate anti-pedophile editors who are patient and smart to watch these articles". As I replied, what we need is editors that are patient, smart and as clinical as they can be. Passion makes Misplaced Pages suck. It's why administrators get constant flack, it's why there are revert wars, it's why there are insults flung all over the place and it's never necessary. Were SqueakBox not fighting on the obvious side of the good guys, he would have been forced to change his ways or leave the project a long time ago. Did you take a look at the diffs I provided on ANI? If not, please do: they are definitely the mark of an editor who behaves in a way that's likely to drive away editors like me who can take some abuse but do think that at some point it's best to leave the inmates run the asylum. Cheers, Pascal.Tesson 23:47, 19 September 2007 (UTC)
- As I've said, in my experience he has, which is not to say that others have the same experience, or that he always has. Zealous application of WP:BLP is good, and overzealous application should be met with calmness. Passion is not what makes Misplaced Pages suck, obsession is what does that. Most of the serious problems I've encountered have been with people who are determined to boost their own interests, not with those pursuing WP:BLP. Guy (Help!) 06:53, 20 September 2007 (UTC)
- It's a fine line between unbdridled passion and obsession and passion stops being ok when it leads you to bulldoze your way through other editors. I suppose it's your right not to take a look at the evidence I provided or to write off SqueakBox's extensive block log as the sign of a passionate editor, but even if your interactions with him have been positive, it's important to point out that many others have found him stubborn, prone to wild accusations and prone to edit warring. And by "other editors" I don't mean sockpuppets of Voice of Britain, I mean myself, User:DanielEng, User:Morven, User:Tony Sidaway, User:ElKevbo, User:Kylu, User:Georgewilliamherbert, to name but a few. I'm grateful for the work that he does but I don't think there's any need for the crap that comes with it. Pascal.Tesson 14:57, 20 September 2007 (UTC)
- Most of those are Wikifriends of mine, I've not heard from them about it. Regardless, a little patience should pay dividends. He's not some kid, he is a grownup. Guy (Help!) 16:49, 20 September 2007 (UTC)
- Perhaps you can ask them then, or perhaps you can take a look at the diffs I provided or, say, User_talk:SqueakBox/history#NAMBLA_article, User_talk:SqueakBox/history#RfA_comments. I'm asking for 10 minutes of your time because I really am genuinely interested in having your thoughts on this. If you read these incidents and conclude that SqueakBox is just a little too enthusiastic about his work and that the problem is the lack of patience from myself, Georgewilliamherbert, Morven, well I guess I want to get advice on how to handle such things, because clearly I can't. Pascal.Tesson 17:56, 20 September 2007 (UTC)
- Most of those are Wikifriends of mine, I've not heard from them about it. Regardless, a little patience should pay dividends. He's not some kid, he is a grownup. Guy (Help!) 16:49, 20 September 2007 (UTC)
- I am not obsessed with any subject on wikipedia. We cant have unsourced claims that any living person is a rape victim and I went through the people in that cat on a case by case basis, I certainly made no attempt to depopulate the category as some of the sourced cases where aboslutely left till the cfd passed. I afd'd the NAMBLA article after being asked to do so after being BOLD and redirecting it. ascal, your claim that Sidaway has a problem with me is offensicve and you dont have the evidence to back it up as I have had a good personal relationship with him and we tend to agree on many issues including re possible pedophilia images. This inj itself makes me think you are muck-raking if not actually harrassing me. I dont believe you should handle anything in relation to me, Pascal, as your own behaviour towards me has been far from perfect, eg bringing private emails to my talk page, and even after being warned by El C, being angry that I didnt assume you were an admin when you were not on the admin list nor contactable by meail etc. I have asked for mediation, you are ignoring that request and if this continues an Rfc is probably the only feasible option, and indeed if you want to see me sanctioned arbcom is the only realistic way you willa chieve that. But if you want to leave me alone to get on and edit that would be great. Your campaign against me is anything but, is unwarranted and unwelcome, SqueakBox 18:13, 20 September 2007 (UTC)
- And Guy is right that I am not some kid but I feel you, Pascal, are treating me like you are the teacher and I am some unruly schoolkid,m which is so far from the truth that yopu'll have to forgive me if I don't take that approach seriously (I am an adult with serious responsibilities). You have accused me of recklessness etc but I dont see you as being in a position to make that kind of judgement concerning me which is why I would like to see medaition between you and I as the only solution to this issue, other of course than just ignoring each other, live and let live (you seem fine with my edits to the controversial Roman Catholic sex abuse cases so you clearly dont have a problem with many if not most of my main space edits, SqueakBox 18:16, 20 September 2007 (UTC)
Edith Elura Tilton Penrose
Hi, I was gonna start a stub for Edith Penrose and noticed you have deleted it 3 times already. She's pretty obscure but very influential. Would it be worth me writing up an entry and then putting it forward for consideration before creating the page or is it a lost cause? I mean is the problem just a lack of assertion of significance, or something else? Thanks Paki.tv —Preceding signed but undated comment was added at 10:10, 20 September 2007 (UTC)
- If a sourced article establishing notability can be written, just go ahead. The last version was, in its entirety: "Edith Elura Tilton Penrose (November 15, 1914 in Los Angeles, California – October, 1996 in Waterbeach, England) was an economist." Guy (Help!) 10:15, 20 September 2007 (UTC)
Blogs as sources
Your edit on the Roger Elwood article was proper. It's generally held to be a dirty little secret of the industry, alas, with no hardcopy sources to cite. Such is Wikilife: if you can't source, don't put it in. But I've reverted your edit to the article about John M. Ford, since it met the requirements of WP:SELFPUB pretty nicely. --Orange Mike 15:55, 20 September 2007 (UTC)
- I am very wary of stuff in the blogosphere which lacks an independent corroborating discussion in more reliable sources to attest to its significance. Bloggers have a tendency to blow things out of all proportion. Guy (Help!) 16:47, 20 September 2007 (UTC)
- This is not an ordinary case. John M. "Mike" Ford was a frequent contributor to Making Light, one of the most cherished and well-known people there. It would be like impersonating a favorite uncle at an intimate family reunion! If he had been impersonated, it would have come out in mere moments, and the scandal would have spread throughout the community. A Mike Ford post on Making Light is pretty much the gold standard for stuff coming from John M. Ford. --Orange Mike 16:54, 20 September 2007 (UTC)
- But do we need dozens fo quotes from the horse's mouth? We are supposed to reflect what the reliable independent sources say about him, not simply repeat what he said about himself. I think we're straying too much into a journalistic profile from original sources and away from an encyclopaedic distillation of published material. We are not supposed to be the ones weighing the significance of primary sources. Guy (Help!) 17:08, 20 September 2007 (UTC)
- If the article was based on such posts, it would of course be absurd. The item which was sourced to that particular post was a trivial one, one well within the bounds of the WP:SELFPUB guidelines. --Orange Mike 17:13, 20 September 2007 (UTC)
- Trivia is... trivial. Does the article really need padding? Guy (Help!) 21:07, 20 September 2007 (UTC)
Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion/Burger King menu items
You created an AfD over an existing archived AfD at Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion/Burger King menu items. Ideally, you should have created Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion/Burger King menu items (second nomination). I'm not sure where to go from here. I don't know how to split article histories (if that is even possible.) The best bet may be to simply close the AfD, and revert back to the old version, and relist again at the second nom title, and I guess loose those 11 comments. What do you think? Did you purposely start and AfD over the existing archive?-Andrew c 02:02, 21 September 2007 (UTC)
- Twinkle might have done so, which would explain why I could not find the original... Guy (Help!) 10:00, 22 September 2007 (UTC)
Clue help neded
Over on BLPN. I removed some inflammatory comments from the SWK talk page, which implicitly compared him with Hitler and other notorious historical figures. Now I'm being attacked as a censor. Some cluebat assistance would be appreciated. Thanks! FCYTravis 06:44, 21 September 2007 (UTC)
Smile!
Smile at others by adding {{subst:Smile}} to their talk page with a friendly message.
Meateater 11:54, 21 September 2007 (UTC)
Why is 2010 in film protected?
I have put a reference to 2010 in film in articles for upcoming Narnia movies, but the page title is protected from creation. Why?Alan 20:11, 21 September 2007 (UTC)
- Because Misplaced Pages is not a crystal ball. Any such assertions are at this point pure speculation. --Orange Mike 22:31, 21 September 2007 (UTC)